(PC) Stevenson v. Curnel et al, No. 1:2017cv00764 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER Allowing Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's Due Process Claim Against Defendant Randolph; ORDER DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants; and ORDER Referring Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M. CURNEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING ACTION TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT RANDOLPH, DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS [ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] Plaintiff Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 22 Recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s due process claim 23 against Defendant Randolph and dismissing all other claims and Defendants. The Findings and 24 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to the parties that objections were to 25 be filed within fourteen days. On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the 26 Findings and Recommendations. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 16, 2017, are adopted in full; 6 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Randolph; 7 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a 8 9 cognizable claim for relief; and 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 6, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 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.