(PC) Gradford v. McDougall et al, No. 1:2017cv00201 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/11/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MCDOUGALL, et al., (Doc. No. 19) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. (Doc. No. 1.) 21 Plaintiff named as defendants five Stanislaus County Sheriff Deputies: McDougall, Tiexiera, 22 McCarthy, Meservey, and Safford. On October 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued 23 findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants 24 Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other 25 claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. 26 (Doc. No. 19.) The parties were provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and 27 recommendations. (Id.) On November 2, 2017, plaintiff provided notice that he had no 28 objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) 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, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.1 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 The findings and recommendations issued on October 24, 2017 (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in full; 7 2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s initial complaint (Doc. No. 1) against 8 defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First 9 Amendment; 10 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 11 4. Plaintiff’s claims concerning mail interference, failure to protect him, and false 12 disciplinary charges are dismissed from this action for violation of Rule 18 and 13 plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 14 5. Defendants McDougall, Meservey, and Safford are dismissed from this action for 15 violation of Rule 18 and plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief 16 may be granted against them; 17 6. and Safford from this action on the court’s docket; and 18 19 7. 20 21 The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants McDougall, Meservey, This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 11, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 As discussed in the findings and recommendations, dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against defendant McDougall is warranted because that claim is unrelated to plaintiff’s claims against defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy. However, if plaintiff wishes to pursue his claim against McDougall, he may do so by initiating a separate action setting forth that claim in a complaint. 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.
