Williams v. King et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/6/2018. This action shall continue to proceed on plaintiff's Due Process and Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Young, Perez, Deleon and Underwood. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY WILLIAMS,

12

No. 1:15-cv-00543-DAD-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DeLEON, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 33)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Corey Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On December 18, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second

21

amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d

22

500 (9th Cir. 2017), held that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs

23

and defendants, even those not served with process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate

24

judge to dispose of a civil case. (Doc. No. 33.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued

25

findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the claims previously

26

found to be non-cognizable. (Id. at 9.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file

27

objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed

28

and the time for doing so has passed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly:

5

1. The findings and recommendations issued December 18, 2017 (Doc. No. 33) are

6
7

adopted in full;
2. This action shall continue to proceed on plaintiff’s Due Process and Eighth

8
9
10
11

Amendment claims against defendants Young, Perez, DeLeon, and Underwood; and
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2