(PC) Mitchell v. Beard, 1:15-cv-01512-DAD-GSA. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180118646
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 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 18, 2017, in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the as
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 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 18, 2017, in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the ass..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 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 18, 2017, in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge's prior order of August 31, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 44, 56.) These findings and recommendations provided that plaintiff could file objections within fourteen days. On December 29, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 57.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff's objections give the court no reason to call the magistrate judge's analysis into question.
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 18, 2017 (Doc. No. 56) are adopted in full;
2. Consistent with the magistrate judge's prior screening order issued on August 31, 2017, the following claims and defendants are dismissed, for the reasons provided in the court's August 31, 2017 screening order (Doc. No. 44):
a. Defendants Munoz, Ornelas, Sanchez, Barella, Thytie, Fernandez, Roska, Laguatan, Rodriguez, and 3 Doe Defendants (nurses) are dismissed from this action for plaintiff's failure to state any claims under § 1983 against them upon which relief may be granted;
b. Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, medical care, and due process are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim;
c. This case shall proceed on plaintiff's claim against defendant Hunter for subjecting him to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
