(PC) Quiroga v. Graves et al, No. 1:2016cv00234 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO J. QUIROGA III, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. No. 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SERGEANT GRAVES, et al., 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 47) 16 17 Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 15, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 21 recommendations, recommending that: (1) plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint proceed against 22 defendant Fuentes for violation of plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth 23 Amendment; and (2) all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to 24 state a claim. (Doc. No. 47.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 25 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 26 service. (Id. at 13.) On October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on 27 the due process claim and requested a copy of the fourth amended complaint. (Doc. No. 48.) 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. 7 8 adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds only against defendant Fuentes and only for violation of plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; 9 10 The findings and recommendations filed on October 15, 2018 (Doc. No. 47) are 3. 11 Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to safety are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 12 4. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed; 13 5. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed; 14 6. Defendants Gause and Graves are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff’s 15 16 failure to state a cognizable claim against either; 7. 17 18 complaint (Doc. No. 45) when service of process is initiated; and 8. 19 20 21 22 The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of the fourth amended This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.