Williams v. Alfaro

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION That This Action Proceed Only on Cognizable Claims and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed 14 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

11
12
13

CASE No. 1: 17-cv-01310-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

v.
S. ALFARO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

(ECF NO. 14)

15
16

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

17

rights action brought 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 of the

19

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

20

On

January

22,

2018,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

findings

and

a

21

recommendation that this action proceed on the following cognizable claims: 1) First

22

Amendment retaliation claims for damages against Defendants Villarrial, Dollarhide,

23

Longoria, and Noland in their individual capacities; 2) Eighth Amendment excessive

24

force claims for damages against Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland,

25

and Burns in their individual capacities; 3) Eighth Amendment medical claims for

26

damages against Defendants Dollarhide, Noland, and Burns in their individual

27

capacities; 4) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for damages against

28

1

Defendants Longoria, Noland, and Alvarado in their individual capacities; and 5) ADA

2

claims against Defendants Alfaro and Sexton in their official capacities. (ECF No. 14.)

3

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable as

4

pled and he recommended that they be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff previously had been

5

afforded an opportunity to amend to cure the defects identified by the Magistrate Judge

6

(ECF No. 11), but declined to do so (ECF Nos. 12, 13).

7

The findings and recommendation were served on Plaintiff with notice that any

8

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 14.) On February 7,

9

2018, Plaintiff filed objections, objecting to the dismissal of his claims against Defendant

10

Gallagher. (ECF No. 16.)

11

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

12

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

13

Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by

14

proper analysis. For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the facts alleged by

15

Plaintiff are insufficient, standing alone, to suggest deliberate indifference on the part of

16

Defendant Gallagher. Plaintiff’s objections do not add any facts to suggest this defect

17

could be cured through amendment.

18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20
21
22
23

The Court adopts the January 22, 2018 findings and recommendation
(ECF No. 14) in full;

2.

This action proceeds on the following cognizable claims as stated in the
Court’s screening order (ECF No. 11):
a. First Amendment claims for damages against Defendants

24

Villarrial, Dollarhide, Longoria, and Noland in their individual

25

capacities;

26

b. Eighth Amendment excessive force claims for damages against

27

Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland, and

28

Burns in their individual capacities;
2

1

c. Eighth Amendment medical claims for damages against

2

Defendants Dollarhide, Noland, and Burns in their individual

3

capacities;

4

d. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for damages

5

against Defendants Longoria, Noland, and Alvarado in their

6

individual capacities; and

7

e. ADA claims against Defendants Alfaro and Sexton in their official

8
9
10

capacities;
3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to
state a claim.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3