Cranford v. Adams et al

Filing 35

ORDER Adopting 33 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 District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/10/2018. New Case No.: 1:16-cv-00783-GSA(PC). (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ARCHIE CRANFORD,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

vs.
TINA M. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

1:16-cv-00783-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 33.)
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

15
16
17

Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

18

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

19

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

20

On December 13, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s

22

prior order in light of the Williams1 decision. (ECF No. 33.) On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34.)

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

25

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

26

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

27

supported by the record and proper analysis.

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 30,

5

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

6

for the reasons provided in the court’s March 30, 2017, screening order:

7

(1)

Defendants Tina M. Adams, (Psych Tech), Jessica C. (Psych Tech),

8

Patient V. (Psych Tech), and Barbara Niewesas are DISMISSED from

9

this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims under § 1983 against

10

them upon which relief may be granted; and

11

(2)

Plaintiff’s claims based on inadequate medical care and right to privacy

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-00783-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