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)

Download PDF
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

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?