Cochran v. Sherman et al

Filing 53

ORDER adopting 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/17/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-01388-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
S. SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 51)

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

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

19

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

20

On March 16, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended

21

complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against defendants Sherman and Barba for a

22

violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. (Doc. No. 28.)

23

On December 21, 2017, the magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s first amended

24

complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th

25

Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with

26

prejudice absent the consent of all parties, even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge

27

jurisdiction, as plaintiff had. (Doc. No. 51.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings

28

and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the claims found to be non1

1

cognizable. (Id.) The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and

2

recommendations. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.

3

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

4

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. Having carefully reviewed the

5

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

6

record and by proper analysis.

7
8

Accordingly:
1.

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued December 21, 2017 (Doc. No. 51) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action shall continue to proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against Defendants

11

Sherman and Barba for a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of

12

religion; and

13

3.

14
15
16

All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2