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