Bullard v. St. Andra et al
Filing
28
ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Non-Cognizable Claims, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/17/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
R. ST. ANDRA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS
(ECF No. 25)
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
17
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
18
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On June 16, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF
20
No. 8) and found it states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against CO Jane Doe
21
and CO Benson; a conspiracy claim against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; and a First
22
Amendment retaliation claim against CO Davis. (ECF No. 10.) Although not expressly
23
stated, the remaining claims apparently were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
24
On February 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge re-screened Plaintiff’s complaint,
25
recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.
26
2017), held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with
27
prejudice in screening prisoner complaints absent the consent of all parties, even if the
28
1
plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (ECF No.
2
25.) Concurrently, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
3
recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable claims. (Id.) The parties
4
were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. No
5
objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
7
the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the Court finds
8
the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
9
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued February 23, 2018 are adopted
10
in full;
11
12
2. That this action continue to proceed only Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
13
claims against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; conspiracy claim against CO
14
Jane Doe and CO Benson; and First Amendment retaliation claim against
15
CO Davis; and
3. That all other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
16
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 17, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?