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)

Download PDF
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

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?