Fields v. Sturkey et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants; ORDERED that this action shall proceed against Defendant Ruiz and all other claims and Defendants are dismissed; ORDERED that this action be referred back to assigned Magistrate Judge, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/7/17. E. Garcia (Correctional Sergeant at PVSP), D. Risehoover (Correctional Officer at PVSP), M. Sturkey (Correctional Officers at PVSP), J. Abraham (Correctional Officer at PVSP) and S. Frauenheim (Warden at PVSP) terminated (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRODERICK R. FIELDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
M. STURKEY et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-01430-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 13)

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Broderick R. Fields is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint under 28

21

U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim against defendant Ruiz for violation

22

of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable

23

claims. (Doc. No. 11.) The court therefore provided plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his

24

complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found by the court

25

to be cognizable. (Id.) On June 21, 2017, plaintiff notified the court of his intention to proceed

26

only on his cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 12.)

27
28

On June 22, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending (1) that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Ruiz for
1

1

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that plaintiff’s remaining

2

claims be dismissed from this action; and (3) that defendants Sturkey, Garcia, Risehoover,

3

Abraham, and Frauenheim be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and

4

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

5

to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no

6

objections have been filed.

7

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

8

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

9

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

10

Accordingly,

11

1. The June 22, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;

12

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1), against defendant Ruiz

13

for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

14

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and

15

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

16
17
18

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 7, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2