Raymond v. Martin

Filing 15

ORDER adopting in full 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing certain claims and The City of Bakersfield as a Defendant signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/30/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES RAYMOND, successor in interest
to decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

WARREN MARTIN, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND THE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS A
DEFENDANT

Defendants.

16

(Doc. No. 7)

17
Plaintiff James Raymond is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action as the successor in

18
19

interest to his deceased son, Augustus Joshua Crawford. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred

20

to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rules 302 and

21

304.

22

On May 2, 2018, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued an order

23

directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed

24

only on claims alleged in his original complaint found to be cognizable by the court. (Doc. No.

25

5.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to allege cognizable claims under state

26

law due to his failure to plead in compliance with the Tort Claims Act. (Id. at 7–8.) In addition,

27

the magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against the City of

28

Bakersfield. (Id. at 13–15.) On May 21, 2018, plaintiff informed the court that he wished to
1

1

proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, on May 23, 2018, the

2

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action proceed

3

only on plaintiff’s claims of excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of

4

familial association against Officer Martin and that plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed.

5

(Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the findings and

6

recommendations. (Doc. No. 7 at 15.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for

7

doing so has passed.

8
9
10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court conducted a de
novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court concludes that the findings
and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

11

Accordingly:

12

1. The findings and recommendations issued May 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in

13

full;

14

2. Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death, negligence, assault, and battery are dismissed;

15

3. Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Bakersfield are

16

dismissed;

17

4. The City of Bakersfield is terminated as a defendant in this action;

18

5. This action shall proceed only upon plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

for excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of familial

20

association against defendant Officer Martin; and

21

6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

22
23
24
25

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2