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)

Download PDF
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

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?