Cortinas v. Huerta, 1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA-PC. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180611503
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 22.) ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Larry William Cortinas ("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.
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 22.) ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Larry William Cortinas ("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. ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 22.)
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
Larry William Cortinas ("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 15, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge's prior order in light of the Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). (ECF No. 22.) The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and no objections have been filed.
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 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations entered by the magistrate judge on December 15, 2017, are ADOPTED in full;
2. For the reasons provided in the September 13, 2017, screening order, the following claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the Complaint:
a. Defendants Lieutenant A. Ruiz, Sergeant A. Randolph, and five Doe Defendants 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 failure to protect him and inadequate medical care are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim;
and
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
