Stevenson v. Curnel et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER Allowing Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's Due Process Claim Against Defendant Randolph; ORDER DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants; and ORDER Referring Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
M. CURNEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING ACTION
TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT RANDOLPH,
DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

Plaintiff Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

22

Recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s due process claim

23

against Defendant Randolph and dismissing all other claims and Defendants. The Findings and

24

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to the parties that objections were to

25

be filed within fourteen days. On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the

26

Findings and Recommendations.

27

///

28

///
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

2

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

3

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 16, 2017, are adopted in full;

6

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Randolph;

7

3.

All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a

8
9

cognizable claim for relief; and
4.

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 6, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2