# (PC) Browning v. Fitzpatrick

> District Court, E.D. California · August 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118530

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 11, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118530

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELRADER BROWNING, III, No. 1:21-cv-01751 JLT GSA (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
13 v.
(Doc. 12)
14 FITZPATRICK, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights
18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On July 11, 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this
21 action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants
22 Renteria, Arreola, and Haddad, and that all other claims against all other defendants be dismissed.
23 (Doc. 12.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time
24 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 9, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
25 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this
27 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and
28 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued July 11, 2025 (Doc. 12) are
2 ADOPTED IN FULL.
3 2. This action shall PROCEED on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force
4 claims against Defendants Renteria, H. Arreola, and A. Haddad.
5 3. All other claims and all other Defendants identified in this matter are
6 DISMISSED.
7
g IT IS SO ORDERED.
o | Dated: _ August 10, 2025 Cerin | Tower
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118530. Public record. Not legal advice.