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)

Download PDF
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

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?