Voss v. Baker

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CRAIG WILLIAM VOSS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 1:17-cv-00626-DAD-EPG (PC)

BRIAN BAKER,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 29)
Defendant.

16
17

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

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

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

20

On December 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s complaint,

21

recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017),

22

had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice absent

23

the consent of all parties, even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as

24

plaintiff had. (Doc. No. 29.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and

25

recommendations recommending that all claims, except for plaintiff’s claims against defendant

26

Baker for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment

27

and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, be dismissed. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was

28

provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen
1

1

days. On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the findings and

2

recommendations. (Doc. No. 32).

3

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

4

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

5

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly:

8

1. The findings and recommendations issued December 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 29) are

9
10

adopted in full;
2. This action shall continue to proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Baker

11

for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

12

Amendment, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

13

3. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

14
15
16
17

granted; and
4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2