The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 1:19-cv-00156-NONE-GSA-PC
11
Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
12 RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
vs. (Doc. No. 18.)
13
DAVID HICKS, et al., ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
14
ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS HICKS
Defendants.
15 AND ROCHA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH
16 AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS FOR
17 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
18
19 Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil
20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The matter was referred to a United States
21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22 On May 20, 2020, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that
23 this action proceed only against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer
24 Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed
25 from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 18 (noting that plaintiff
26 elected to proceed on cognizable claims).) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file
27
28 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
1 || objections to the findings and recommendations. (/d.) The time period for filing objections has
2 || passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and
3 || recommendations.
4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
5 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
6 || the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
7 || analysis.
8 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 20, 2020, (Doc. No. 18) are
10 ADOPTED in full;
11 2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's Complaint filed on February 5, 2019,
12 against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha
13 for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
14 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's
15 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, the
16 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Rehabilitation Act (RA);
17 4. Plaintiffs claims for failure to protect, violation of equal protection, violation of
18 the ADA or the RA, and violation of the Coleman v. Brown” consent decree are
19 dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim under § 1983,
20 the ADA, or the RA; and
21 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
22 proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai
25 Dated: _ June 22, 2020 eee Te >
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28 1? Coleman v. Brown, et al., 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).