(PC) Washington v. Hicks

Opinion

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 1:19-cv-00156-NONE-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND vs. (Doc. No. 18.) DAVID HICKS, et al., ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS HICKS Defendants. AND ROCHA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 20, 2020, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 18 (noting that plaintiff elected to proceed on cognizable claims).) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file 1 On March 7, 2019, plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee in full for this case. (Court Record.) Lb YOY EU eee TOYS ev

objections to the findings and recommendations. (/d.) The time period for filing objections has passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 20, 2020, (Doc. No. 18) are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's Complaint filed on February 5, 2019, against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Rehabilitation Act (RA); 4. Plaintiffs claims for failure to protect, violation of equal protection, violation of the ADA or the RA, and violation of the Coleman v. Brown” consent decree are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim under § 1983, the ADA, or the RA; and 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai Dated: _ June 22, 2020 eee Te > UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1? Coleman v. Brown, et al., 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).