Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 23

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-MJS (PC)

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

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)

17
18
19

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

20

action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

21

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

22

Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

23

On January 30, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

24

concluded that it states a cognizable claim for damages against defendant Baker for excessive use

25

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

26

Amendment, but that no other cognizable claims were alleged. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was

27

ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the court in writing if he wished to proceed only

28

on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he
1

1

does not wish to amend and instead wishes to proceed with the claims found by the court to be

2

cognizable. (Doc. No. 13.) Accordingly, on February 28, 2017, the magistrate judge issued

3

findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on the claims set forth

4

in plaintiff’s complaint which have found by the court to be cognizable and that the remaining

5

claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff filed no objections

6

to those findings and recommendations and the time for doing so has passed.

7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed February 28, 2017

12

(Doc. No. 15);

13

2. This action will proceed only against Defendant Baker on claims for damages for

14

excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in

15

violation of the First Amendment; and

16

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a

17
18
19

claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2