Corena v. Holland et al
Filing
26
ORDER Adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/18. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JORGE CORENA,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:16-cv-01025-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
(Doc. No. 22)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On December 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second
21
amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d
22
500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims
23
with prejudice absent the consent of all parties, even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate
24
judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had. (Doc. No. 22.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge entered
25
findings and recommendations recommending that all claims and defendants, except for
26
plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe for excessive use of force in
27
violation of the Eighth Amendment, against the Doe defendant for failure to protect in violation
28
of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rodriguez and Doe for retaliation in violation
1
1
of the First Amendment, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 16.) The parties were
2
provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen
3
days. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
5
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
6
undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper
7
analysis.
8
Accordingly:
9
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 8, 2017 (Doc. No. 22) are
10
11
adopted in full;
2. This action shall continue to proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against defendants
12
Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
13
Amendment, against the Doe defendant for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth
14
Amendment, and against defendants Rodriguez and Doe for retaliation in violation of
15
the First Amendment;
16
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim; and
17
4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?