ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff's second amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice absent the consent of all parties, even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had. (Doc. No. 22.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations recommending that all claims and defendants, except for plaintiff's claims against defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against the Doe defendant for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rodriguez and Doe for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 16.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.

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

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.