Mitchell v. Beard et al

Filing 61

ORDER Adopting 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/17/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. BEARD, et al.,

15

No. 1:15-cv-01512-DAD-GSA

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 44)

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On December 18, 2017, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. King, 875

21

F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s

23

prior order of August 31, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 44, 56.) These findings and recommendations

24

provided that plaintiff could file objections within fourteen days. On December 29, 2017,

25

plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 57.)

26

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

27

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

28

file, including plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and
1

1

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections give the

2

court no reason to call the magistrate judge’s analysis into question.

3
4

Given the foregoing:
1.

5
6

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 18,
2017 (Doc. No. 56) are adopted in full;

2.

Consistent with the magistrate judge’s prior screening order issued on August 31,

7

2017, the following claims and defendants are dismissed, for the reasons provided in

8

the court’s August 31, 2017 screening order (Doc. No. 44):

9

a.

Defendants Munoz, Ornelas, Sanchez, Barella, Thytie, Fernandez, Roska,

10

Laguatan, Rodriguez, and 3 Doe Defendants (nurses) are dismissed from this

11

action for plaintiff’s failure to state any claims under § 1983 against them upon

12

which relief may be granted;

13

b.

Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force, medical care, and due process are
dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim;

14
15

c.

This case shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hunter for

16

subjecting him to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth

17

Amendment; and

18
19
20

3.

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2