Larry v. Goodwin, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/2018. This action now proceeds with plaintiff's complaint filed on February 8, 2017 against defendants S. Goodwin and Reis. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERALD MORRIS LARRY,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00172-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

S. GOODWIN, et al.,
(Doc. No. 13)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Jerald Morris Larry is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

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

19

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

20

On October 10, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

21

found that the complaint stated only cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants

22

Reis and Goodwin based upon alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc. No. 11

23

at 8.) Accordingly, plaintiff was directed to either file an amended complaint or notify the court

24

of his intent to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable by the magistrate judge in the

25

screening order. (Id. at 9.) On October 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wished to

26

proceed only on those claims found cognizable. (Doc. No. 12.)

27
28

Therefore, on October 31, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that the action proceed only against defendants Goodwin and
1

1

Reis on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims based upon alleged unconstitutional conditions of

2

confinement. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided fourteen days in which to file objections to

3

those findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not done so, and the time for

4

doing so has now passed.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Accordingly,

9

1.

10
11

The findings and recommendations issued on October 31, 2017 (Doc. No. 13) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action now proceeds with plaintiff’s complaint filed on February 8, 2017

12

against defendants S. Goodwin (Supervisor Cook) and Reis (Supervisor Cook I),

13

on plaintiff’s claims alleging that he was subjected to adverse conditions of

14

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

15

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;

16

4.

Defendants John Does #1 and #2 (Maintenance Workers) are dismissed from this

17

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be

18

granted against them; and

19

5.

20
21
22

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2