From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turnbough v. Hernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 15, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM

10-15-2018

ROGER TURNBOUGH, Plaintiff, v. Y. HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Roger Turnbough is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of the alleged events at issue in this action.

On July 30, 2018 the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated a cognizable claim against defendant Hernandez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 13.) The magistrate judge recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. /////

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed June 11, 2018, against defendant Hernandez for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Turnbough v. Hernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 15, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
Case details for

Turnbough v. Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:ROGER TURNBOUGH, Plaintiff, v. Y. HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 15, 2018

Citations

No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)

Citing Cases

Ponce v. Solorio

“With rare, limited exceptions, none of which applies to § 1983 actions, federal law does not allow a private…

Harper v. Cisneros

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot bring a criminal action under § 1983 against Defendants for violation of the…