Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 15

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Offie to Assign Matter to a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That This Action Proceed Only on Cognizable First and Eighth Amendment Claim and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, s igned by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/28/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The new case number is 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-MJS (PC). (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER BAKER, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-01540-MJS (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT
JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE
FIRST AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT
CLAIM AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
(ECF No. 1)

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

23

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388

24

(1971). On January 30, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it

25

states a cognizable claim for damages against Defendant Baker for excessive force in

26

violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,

27

but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

28

complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to proceed only on the cognizable

1

claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he does not intend to amend and instead wishes to

2

proceed with the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13.)

3

However, Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders requiring him to consent to

4

or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 2, 9). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office

5

is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant to

6

Local Rule 120(e).

7

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

8

1. This action proceed only on the cognizable First and Eighth

9

Amendment claims for damages against Defendant Baker ; and

10

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure

11

to state a claim.

12

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

13

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and

15

recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document

16

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

17

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the

18

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)

19

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 28, 2017

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2