Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Finding Certain Claims Cognizable, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/17/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MITCHELL GARRAWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA

v.
JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDING CERTAIN
CLAIMS COGNIZABLE, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND REFERRING
MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. No. 11)

17
18

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

19

action brought pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was

20

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

21

302.

22

On April 17, 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. (Doc. No. 1.)

23

On April 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued findings

24

and recommendations, recommending that this action be permitted to proceed on plaintiff’s claim

25

against defendants Ciufo, Miller, and Zaragoza for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the

26

Eighth Amendment, and that all remaining claims be dismissed from this action for failure to

27

state a claim, without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was provided fourteen days in

28

which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day deadline
1

1

has expired, and plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and

2

recommendations.

3

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

4

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

5

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record

6

and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly:

8
9
10

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in
full;
2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s claim against defendants Ciufo, Miller, and

11

Zaragoza for failure to protect plaintiff under the Eighth Amendment as alleged in his

12

original complaint filed April 17, 2017;

13
14
15
16
17
18

3. Plaintiff’s claim brought under 18 U.S.C. § 4042 is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted without leave to amend; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2