(PC)Moya v. Chism ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE ANTHONY MOYA, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01624 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ) CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ) 14 B. CHISM, et al., ) (Doc. 10) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Rene Anthony Moya asserts his civil rights were violated at Kings County Jail, where Plaintiff 18 is a pretrial detainee, and seeks to hold the defendants liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See 19 generally Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of the 22 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (Doc. 6.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated a 23 cognizable claim for excessive force against Deputy VanNess and failure to protect claim against 24 Sergeant Putnam. (Id. at 2-4.) However, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to state 25 cognizable claims against Tolbert and Chism, who learned of the alleged civil rights violations 26 through the reporting and appeals process at the jail. (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff 27 an opportunity to amend his complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only upon the 28 cognizable claims. (Id.) 1 Plaintiff agreed to proceed only upon the cognizable claims against VanNess and Putnam. 2 || (See Doc. 8 at 1.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 3 || action proceed on Plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant VanNess and failure to protect 4 |} claim against defendant Putnam on February 10, 2022. (Doc. 10.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 6 || objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Doc. 10 at 2.) In addition, the Court 7 || warned that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 8 || appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 9 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections to have been filed, and the time to do so 10 || has now passed. ll In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court 12 || conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds th 13 || Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 14 || the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 10, 2022 (Doc. 10) are 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant VanN« 18 and failure to protect claim against defendant Putnam. 19 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the action. 20 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket and terminate B. Chism and I 21 Tolbert as defendants in the action; and 22 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 |! Dated: _March 14, 2022 ( LAW pA LU. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28