Turner v. Porter et al

Filing 33

ORDER Adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Claims and Defendants Consistent with Magistrate Judge's Prior Order in Light of Williams Decision; ORDER ASSIGNING Case to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/10/2018. New Case No.: 1:16-cv-00542-GSA(PC). (Sant Agata, S)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DEDRIC TURNER,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

vs.
M. PORTER, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

1:16-cv-00542-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 32.)
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR
ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS
DECISION
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY S.
AUSTIN

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff Dedric Turner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
this civil rights action 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 December 13,
2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that claims and
defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s prior order in light of the
Williams1 decision. (Doc. No. 32.) The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file
objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has
expired, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
analysis.

27
28

1

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017).
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4

The findings and recommendations entered by the magistrate judge on
December 13, 2017, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

Consistent with the magistrate judge’s prior screening order issued on March 28,

5

2017, claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the Complaint as follows,

6

for the reasons provided in the court’s March 28, 2017, screening order:

7

(1)

Defendants Correctional Officer M. Porter, Sergeant H. Adams, Chief

8

Deputy Warden Anti, and J. Benevidez are DISMISSED from this action

9

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

10

which relief may be granted; and

11

(2)

Plaintiff’s claims based on supervisory liability and a false RVR report

12

are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a

13

claim;

14

3.

It appearing that all parties to this action have consented to magistrate judge

15

jurisdiction, this case is ASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all

16

purposes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conduct any and all

17

further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment;

18

4.

19

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign this action in its entirety to
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin;

20

5.

The new case number is 1:16-cv-00542-GSA-PC; and

21

6.

This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all further

22

proceedings.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2