ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 51

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 March 16, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against defendants Sherman and Barba for a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. (Doc. No. 28.)

On December 21, 2017, the magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff's first 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. 51.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the claims found to be non-cognizable. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. 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)(C) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff's case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.