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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?