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)

Download PDF
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

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?