Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt et al

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting 18 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/3/19. Nick Maloy (PIA Superintendant II at SATF-Corcoran) and Prison Industry Authority (Contract Worker at Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01659-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

TED PRUITT, et al.,
(ECF No. 18)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

17
18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was

19

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

20

302.

21

On May 10, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended

22

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim for sexual abuse

23

in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Pruitt and a cognizable claim for

24

discrimination against Defendants Pruitt and Smith in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of

25

the Fourteenth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other

26

defendants. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that this

27

action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Pruitt for sexual abuse in

28

violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants Pruitt and Smith for discrimination in
1

1

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and all other claims and

2

defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 18.) The findings

3

and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to

4

be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) No objections have been filed, and

5

the deadline in which to do so has expired.

6

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

7

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

8

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 10, 2019, (ECF No. 18), are

11

adopted in full;

12

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed July 27, 2018,

13

(ECF No. 17), against Defendant Pruitt for sexual abuse in violation of the Eighth

14

Amendment and against Defendants Pruitt and Smith for discrimination in violation of

15

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

16

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state

17
18

claims upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

19

consistent with this order.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 3, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2