(PC) Cortinas v. Huerta et al, No. 1:2017cv00130 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing Claims and Defendants consistent with Magistrate Judge's prior order in light of Williams Decision signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/7/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. M. HUERTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 22.) ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR ORDER IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION 17 18 19 Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 21 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On December 15, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the magistrate judge’s 24 prior order in light of the Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). (ECF No. 22.) The 25 parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and 26 recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and no objections have 27 been filed. 28 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. 7 8 The findings and recommendations entered by the magistrate judge on December 15, 2017, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 9 For the reasons provided in the September 13, 2017, screening order, the following claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the Complaint: 10 a. Defendants Lieutenant A. Ruiz, Sergeant A. Randolph, and five Doe 11 Defendants are dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state 12 any claims under § 1983 against them upon which relief may be granted; 13 b. Plaintiff’s claims for failure to protect him and inadequate medical care 14 are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 15 claim; 16 17 and 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.