Cortinas v. Huerta et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing Claims and Defendants consistent with Magistrate Judge's prior order in light of Williams Decision signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/7/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
M. HUERTA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 22.)
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR
ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS
DECISION

17
18
19

Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

21

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

22

On December 15, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s

24

prior order in light of the Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). (ECF No. 22.) The

25

parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and

26

recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and no objections have

27

been filed.

28
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

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

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7
8

The findings and recommendations entered by the magistrate judge on
December 15, 2017, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

9

For the reasons provided in the September 13, 2017, screening order, the
following claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the Complaint:

10

a.

Defendants Lieutenant A. Ruiz, Sergeant A. Randolph, and five Doe

11

Defendants are dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state

12

any claims under § 1983 against them upon which relief may be granted;

13

b.

Plaintiff’s claims for failure to protect him and inadequate medical care

14

are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a

15

claim;

16
17

and
3.

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2