Gray v. Johnson et al
ORDER Adopting 297 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROMERO, et al.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
(Doc. No. 297)
Plaintiff Dana Gray is a 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. Plaintiff and defendant Rebel
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6363(c). (Doc. Nos. 6, 71.)
The remaining defendants declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 117.)
The assigned magistrate judge previously screened plaintiff’s complaint before any
defendants appeared. (Doc. No. 47.) On February 4, 2016, the magistrate judge found that
plaintiff had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment and negligence claims in the Fourth Amended
Complaint against defendants Mundunuri, Ziomek, Rebel, Romero, Comelli, and Loadhold. (Id.)
The magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s due process claim without leave to amend because
plaintiff’s medical claims are properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. (Id.)
However, on November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served
with process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case.
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not
have jurisdiction to dismiss the above-described claim by way of the February 4, 2016 order.
Therefore, in light of the Williams decision on December 13, 2017, the magistrate judge entered
findings and recommendations, recommending that the claim be dismissed consistent with the
magistrate judge’s prior screening order. (Doc. No. 297.) The findings and recommendations
were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen
days. On December 28, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
(Doc. No. 299.) Plaintiff’s objections do not substantively address the magistrate judge’s
February 4, 2016 order dismissing plaintiff’s due process claim.
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,
including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
by the record and proper analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 13, 2017,
are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s due process claim alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint is dismissed
without leave to amend, for the reasons provided in the magistrate judge’s February 4,
2016 screening order; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 8, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?