(PC) Voss v. Baker, No. 1:2017cv00626 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/18. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG WILLIAM VOSS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 No. 1:17-cv-00626-DAD-EPG (PC) BRIAN BAKER, 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 29) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s complaint, 21 recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), 22 had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice absent 23 the consent of all parties, even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as 24 plaintiff had. (Doc. No. 29.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations recommending that all claims, except for plaintiff’s claims against defendant 26 Baker for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment 27 and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, be dismissed. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was 28 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen 1 1 days. On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the findings and 2 recommendations. (Doc. No. 32). 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 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued December 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 29) are 9 10 adopted in full; 2. This action shall continue to proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Baker 11 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 12 Amendment, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 13 3. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 14 15 16 17 granted; and 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 19, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.