Williams v. Baker et al
ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Action to Proceed Only on Cognizable Claims and that all other Claims and Defendants be DISMISSED; This action will proceed ONLY against Defendant Baker, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/05/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-MJS (PC)
OFFICER BAKER, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
(Doc. Nos. 1, 15)
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On January 30, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
concluded that it states a cognizable claim for damages against defendant Baker for excessive use
of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment, but that no other cognizable claims were alleged. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was
ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the court in writing if he wished to proceed only
on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he
does not wish to amend and instead wishes to proceed with the claims found by the court to be
cognizable. (Doc. No. 13.) Accordingly, on February 28, 2017, the magistrate judge issued
findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on the claims set forth
in plaintiff’s complaint which have found by the court to be cognizable and that the remaining
claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff filed no objections
to those findings and recommendations and the time for doing so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed February 28, 2017
(Doc. No. 15);
2. This action will proceed only against Defendant Baker on claims for damages for
excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment; and
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?