Opinion
1:16-cv-00783-AWI-GSA-PC
01-10-2018
ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. TINA M. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 33.) ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY S. AUSTIN
Archie Cranford ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 13, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge's prior order in light of the Williams decision. (ECF No. 33.) On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations entered by the magistrate judge on December 13, 2017, are ADOPTED in full;
2. Consistent with the magistrate judge's prior screening order issued on March 30, 2017, claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the Complaint as follows, for the reasons provided in the court's March 30, 2017, screening order:
(1) Defendants Tina M. Adams, (Psych Tech), Jessica C. (Psych Tech), Patient V. (Psych Tech), and Barbara Niewesas are DISMISSED from this action for Plaintiff's failure to state any claims under § 1983 against them upon which relief may be granted; and
(2) Plaintiff's claims based on inadequate medical care and right to privacy are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim;
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2018
3. It appearing that all parties to this action have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, this case is ASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all purposes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment;
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign this action in its entirety to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin;
5. The new case number is 1:16-cv-00783-GSA-PC; and
6. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all further proceedings.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017).