ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 39)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Omar Garcia, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was detained at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility in Visalia, California. Plaintiff is now a state prisoner housed at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. Defendants O'Rafferty, Kaiois (sued herein as Kaious), Onstott, Flores, Myers (sued herein as Meyers), Avina, and Ellis have appeared in this action and consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 19.) Defendant Tulare County Main Jail has not yet appeared in this action.

On April 21, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against: (1) defendants O'Rafferty and Kaiois for excessive use of force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) defendant Onstott for failure to intervene in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) defendants O'Rafferty, Kaiois, Flores, Avina, Myers, and Ellis for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) defendants O'Rafferty, Kaiois, Flores, Avina, Myers, and Ellis for state law negligence. (Doc. No. 33.) In that screening order the magistrate judge dismissed all other claims and defendants, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (Id.) This case has since proceeded against defendants O'Rafferty, Kaiois, Onstott, Flores, Myers, Avina, and Ellis.

On December 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff's first amended complaint, recognizing that in a recent opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff did here, where not all defendants, including those not yet appearing in the action, had not. (Doc. No. 39.) The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's non-cognizable claims be dismissed by the court. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly it is hereby ordered that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.