Gradford v. McDougall et al

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/11/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

MCDOUGALL, et al.,
(Doc. No. 19)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in 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 February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. (Doc. No. 1.)

21

Plaintiff named as defendants five Stanislaus County Sheriff Deputies: McDougall, Tiexiera,

22

McCarthy, Meservey, and Safford. On October 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued

23

findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants

24

Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other

25

claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim.

26

(Doc. No. 19.) The parties were provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and

27

recommendations. (Id.) On November 2, 2017, plaintiff provided notice that he had no

28

objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.)
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, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.1

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6

The findings and recommendations issued on October 24, 2017 (Doc. No. 19) are
adopted in full;

7

2.

This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s initial complaint (Doc. No. 1) against

8

defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First

9

Amendment;

10

3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;

11

4.

Plaintiff’s claims concerning mail interference, failure to protect him, and false

12

disciplinary charges are dismissed from this action for violation of Rule 18 and

13

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and

14

5.

Defendants McDougall, Meservey, and Safford are dismissed from this action for

15

violation of Rule 18 and plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief

16

may be granted against them;

17

6.

and Safford from this action on the court’s docket; and

18
19

7.

20
21

The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants McDougall, Meservey,

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:

January 11, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As discussed in the findings and recommendations, dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against
defendant McDougall is warranted because that claim is unrelated to plaintiff’s claims against
defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy. However, if plaintiff wishes to pursue his claim against
McDougall, he may do so by initiating a separate action setting forth that claim in a complaint.
2