Williams v. Verna et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendant Warden Paul Copenhaver; and ORDER REFERRING Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/21/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ANTHONY VERNA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00764-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER
ADOPTING
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT WARDEN PAUL
COPENHAVER AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF Nos. 16, 20]

Plaintiff Shannon Williams, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

17
18

(“BOP”) proceeding pro se filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

19

Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) on June 2, 2016.

20

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

22

Recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed

23

within twenty-one (21) days. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

25

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

26

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 1, 2017, are adopted in full;

3

2.

This action shall proceed against Defendants Brown and Verna in their individual

4

capacity for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure under the

5

Fourth and Eighth Amendments, and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

6

Amendment;

7
8

3.

Defendant Warden Copenhaver and all other claims are dismissed from the action for

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief;

9

4.

Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory relief and attorney’s fees are dismissed; and

10

5.

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process.

11

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of his first amended complaint,

12

ECF No. 16.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: July 21, 2017

16

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2