Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING 67 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/08/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISSAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 67)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Isaac Da’bour Dawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

20

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

21

On December 7, 2017, in light of the recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th

22

Cir. 2017), the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending

23

that claims be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s prior screening order of March 23,

24

2016. (Doc. Nos. 9, 67.) On December 22, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

25

recommendations. (Doc. No. 70.)

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
2
3
4
5

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 67) are
adopted in full;
2. Consistent with the magistrate judge’s screening order issued on March 23, 2016,

6

defendants Beard, Davey, Jennings, Whitford, Arnett, Noland, and Flores are dismissed

7

from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and

8
9
10
11

3. This case is referred back to the currently assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2