Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/10/2017. Defendants Brennan, Lundey, Rice, R. Schmidt, B. Wedertz, K. Allen and Anderson terminated. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. RAZO, et al.,

15

No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF HAS ELECTED NOT TO
PROCEED ON, AND REFERRING CASE
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. No. 37)

17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant

20

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On November 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order finding certain

23

claims to be cognizable and instructing plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint

24

addressing the deficiencies noted therein with respect to the other claims or to notify the court of

25

his willingness to proceed only with the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (Doc.

26

No. 31.) On January 23, 2017, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed on the

27

claims the magistrate judge had found cognizable. (Doc. No. 35.) Therefore, on January 24,

28

2017, the magistrate judge ordered initiation of service of the complaint on those defendants
1

1

against whom a cognizable claim was found. (Doc. No. 36.) That same day, the magistrate judge

2

issued findings and recommendations recommending this court dismiss the additional claims and

3

defendants with prejudice, based on the prior screening order and the plaintiff’s election not to

4

file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to object to

5

these findings and recommendations. (Id.) No objections have been filed by plaintiff, and the

6

time in which to do so has passed.

7

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

8

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

9

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

10

and proper analysis.

11

Given the foregoing:

12

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on January 24, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18

(Doc. No. 37) are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed on July 6, 2015, on
plaintiff’s claims identified in the screening order to be cognizable (Doc. No. 31);
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action with prejudice, given
plaintiff’s election to proceed only on certain claims found cognizable;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the court’s docket to reflect the dismissal

19

of defendants Brennan, Anderson, B. Wedertz, R. Schmidt, Lundey, K. Allen, and Rice from this

20

action; and

21
22
23

5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2