(PC) Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al, No. 1:2016cv01675 - Document 94 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 84 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/1/18. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DR. SCHARFFENBERG et al., (Doc. No. 84) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Mario Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 3, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second amended 22 complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th 23 Cir. 2017), held that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and 24 defendants, even those not served with process, before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge 25 to dispose of a civil case. (Doc. No. 84.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and 26 recommendations recommending that defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr., Kelly Harrington, and J. 27 Beard/Scott Kernan be dismissed from this action due to plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim against 28 them. (Id. at 7.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 1 1 recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has 2 passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on January 3, 2018 8 9 (Doc. No. 84) are adopted in full; 2. Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr., Kelly Harrington, and J. Beard/Scott Kernan are dismissed from this action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; 10 11 3. This action proceeds solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 12 defendants R.N. Soto and Dr. Scharffenberg for deliberate indifference to serious 13 medical needs; and 14 15 16 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
