Quiroga v. Graves et al

Filing 49

ORDER Adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

No. 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

14

SERGEANT GRAVES, et al.,

15

Defendant.

(Doc. No. 47)

16
17

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

18

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 15, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

20
21

recommendations, recommending that: (1) plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint proceed against

22

defendant Fuentes for violation of plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth

23

Amendment; and (2) all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to

24

state a claim. (Doc. No. 47.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

25

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

26

service. (Id. at 13.) On October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on

27

the due process claim and requested a copy of the fourth amended complaint. (Doc. No. 48.)

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

2

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

4

proper analysis.

5

Accordingly,

6

1.

7
8

adopted in full;
2.

This action now proceeds only against defendant Fuentes and only for violation of
plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;

9
10

The findings and recommendations filed on October 15, 2018 (Doc. No. 47) are

3.

11

Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to
safety are dismissed for failure to state a claim;

12

4.

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed;

13

5.

Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed;

14

6.

Defendants Gause and Graves are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff’s

15
16

failure to state a cognizable claim against either;
7.

17
18

complaint (Doc. No. 45) when service of process is initiated; and
8.

19
20
21
22

The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of the fourth amended

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2