Opinion

(PC) Casey v. Brown

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jan 18, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DOMINQUE ZAFIR CASEY, No. 1:23-cv-1068 JLT SAB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

13 v. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

14 SGT. BROWN, et al., (Doc. 12)

15 Defendants.

16

17 Dominque Zafir Case seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of civil rights

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s Second

19 Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable

20 claims for excessive force against Defendants Cruz, Castillinos, Veith, Duran, Godfrey and

21 failure to intervene claims against Defendants Brown, Bess, and Diaz. (Doc. 12.) However,

22 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Medina. (Id. at 3-4.) The magistrate

23 judge recommended the action proceed on Plaintiff’s cognizable claims and all other defendants

24 be dismissed from the action. (Id. at 5.)

25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff, and informed Plaintiff

26 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 12 at 5.) The magistrate judge advised Plaintiff

27 that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on

28 appeal.” (Id. at 5-6 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v.

1 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file objections or otherwise

2 || respond to the Court.

3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of this

4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and

5 || Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. In the Second Amended

6 | Complaint, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Medina and dropped Elizabeth Stark as a

7 | defendant. (Compare Doc. 9 with Doc. 12.) Accordingly, these individuals should be terminated

8 || as defendants. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued December 21, 2023 (Doc. 12) are

10 ADOPTED in full.

11 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force against

12 Cruz, Castillinos, Veith, Duran, Godfrey; and failure to intervene against Brown,

13 Bess, and Diaz.

14 3. All other Defendants are DISMISSED.

15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Medina and

16 Stark as defendants.

17 5. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

18

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

29 | Dated: _January 17, 2024 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.