Ragsdalev.Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAOct 20, 2015
Case No. CV 14-8075-ODW (GJS) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2015)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Carson v. Martinez

    about where she was during plaintiff's attack were not sufficient for plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim as…

1 Citing case

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • finding that defendant officer who allegedly participated in a cover up by filing a false report about the alleged assault failed to state a cognizable claim and noting that "[p]reparing a false report about an incident after it occurred cannot subject that individual to liability for the force used during the incident"

    Summary of this case from Carson v. Martinez

Case No. CV 14-8075-ODW (GJS)

10-20-2015

LARRY RAGSDALE, Plaintiff v. CESAR LOPEZ FLORES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this action, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"). The deadline to file Objections to the Report has passed, and no Objections have been filed with the Court.

The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket 14, "Motion") is GRANTED respect to Plaintiff's false report, contraband watch, and retaliation claims, and these claims are dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice;
(2) The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's cover up claim, and this claim is dismissed without leave to amend and without prejudice;

(3) The Motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendants Lopez-Flores and Redding, Defendants' request for dismissal based upon qualified immunity, and Defendants' request to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages;

(4) Defendants' Motion For Protective Order (Docket 25) is DENIED and the stay of discovery ordered on April 21, 2015 is VACATED; and

(5) Defendants Lopez- Flores and Redding shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 21 days of the Court's Order

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: October 20, 2015

/s/_________

OTIS D. WRIGHT II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE