McDaniel v. Chavez et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 40 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;ORDER for this action to proceed only against Defendants: Davis, Chavez and Lloyd for violation of due process and Dismissing all other claims and defendants; this case is referred back to the Magistr ate Judge for furthere proceedings, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/26/2016. I.D. Clay (Warden-Retired), Cunningham, N. Grannis (Appeals chief-Retired), R. Manual, Overstreet, Matthew Cate (Secretary) and R. Cipriani terminated. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT MCDANIEL,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NO. 40)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANTS DAVIS, CHAVEZ, AND
LOYD FOR VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS, AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

17

Robert McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

19

on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint filed on August 11, 2016. (ECF No. 39). The matter

20

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

21

Local Rule 302.

22

On September 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

23

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Davis,

24

Chavez, and Lloyd for violation of due process, and that all other claims and defendants be

25

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff

26

was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within

27

thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings

28

and recommendations.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1.

7
8

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
September 8, 2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

9

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on
August 11, 2016, against defendants Davis, Chavez, and Lloyd for violation of

10

due process;

11

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

12

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Capt. Overstreet,

13

Sgt. Cunningham, R. Cipriani, I.D. Clay, Matthew Cate, N. Grannis, and R.

14

Manual on the court’s docket; and

15

5.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 26, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2