Martinez v. Three Unknown Guards of CDCR, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/15/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
THREE UNKNOWN GUARDS OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 24)

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

21

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On June 15, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against

24

receiving and release officer Doe 3 and registered nurse F. Rojas for deliberate indifference in

25

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 24.) The magistrate judge further recommended

26

that the court dismiss all other Doe defendants due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim

27

against them, and that plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed, without prejudice. (Id.) The

28

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections
1

1

were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 9.) Although plaintiff sought and

2

received an extension of time in which to file objections (Doc. Nos. 25, 26), no objections to the

3

findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly,

8

1.

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued on June 15, 2018 (Doc. No. 24) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action proceeds only on plaintiff’s claim against receiving and release officer

11

Doe 3 and registered nurse F. Rojas for deliberate indifference in violation of the

12

Eighth Amendment;

13

3.

14

Transportation officer Doe 1, transportation officer Doe 2, and Does 4-10 are
dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them;

15

4.

Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and

16

5.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

17
18
19
20

proceedings consistent with this order, including issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 15, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2