Michael A. Washington v. Hernandez et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/11/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
MICHAEL A. WASHINGTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18

vs.
R. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01439-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
[Doc. No. 23]

Plaintiff Michael A. Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff

20

consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 8.) On September

21

18, 2017, after being served in this matter, Defendants Chambers, Denney, Hernandez, Stane and

22

Stinson declined to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 18.)

23

On May 25, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant

24

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and found that it stated a claim for

25

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Chambers, Denney,

26

Hernandez, Stane, and Stinson. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend

27

the complaint, or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims

28

identified in the screening order. Following Plaintiff’s written notification that he would not

1

1

amend his complaint, the magistrate judge dismissed all other claims and defendants, with

2

prejudice, for the failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 12.) The case then proceeded on Plaintiff’s

3

cognizable claims.

4

On December 15, 2017, the magistrate judge reinstated Plaintiff’s previously dismissed

5

claims, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.

6

2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with

7

prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge

8

jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (Doc. No. 23.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued

9

findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss those reinstated

10

claims. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his objections to those findings and

11

recommendations. That deadline has passed, and no objections were filed.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

13

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s case. The undersigned concludes the

14

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

17
18
19
20
21

The findings and recommendations dated December 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 23), are

adopted in full;
2.

Defendant Chanelo is dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted; and
3.

This action proceeds solely on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force in violation of

the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hernandez, Stane, Stinson, Chambers, and Denney.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 11, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2