(PC) Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2015cv01867 - Document 73 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 67 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/08/2018. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISSAC DA’BOUR DAWSON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 67) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Isaac Da’bour Dawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 7, 2017, in light of the recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th 22 Cir. 2017), the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending 23 that claims be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s prior screening order of March 23, 24 2016. (Doc. Nos. 9, 67.) On December 22, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 25 recommendations. (Doc. No. 70.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 27 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 28 file, including plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and 1 1 2 3 4 5 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 67) are adopted in full; 2. Consistent with the magistrate judge’s screening order issued on March 23, 2016, 6 defendants Beard, Davey, Jennings, Whitford, Arnett, Noland, and Flores are dismissed 7 from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and 8 9 10 11 3. This case is referred back to the currently assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.