Gonzalez v. Razo et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,
J. RAZO, et al.,
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)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action filed 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.
On November 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order finding certain
claims to be cognizable and instructing plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint
addressing the deficiencies noted therein with respect to the other claims or to notify the court of
his willingness to proceed only with the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (Doc.
No. 31.) On January 23, 2017, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed on the
claims the magistrate judge had found cognizable. (Doc. No. 35.) Therefore, on January 24,
2017, the magistrate judge ordered initiation of service of the complaint on those defendants
against whom a cognizable claim was found. (Doc. No. 36.) That same day, the magistrate judge
issued findings and recommendations recommending this court dismiss the additional claims and
defendants with prejudice, based on the prior screening order and the plaintiff’s election not to
file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to object to
these findings and recommendations. (Id.) No objections have been filed by plaintiff, and the
time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis.
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on January 24, 2017
(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
of defendants Brennan, Anderson, B. Wedertz, R. Schmidt, Lundey, K. Allen, and Rice from this
5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 10, 2017
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?