(PC) Johnson v. Graves, No. 1:2017cv01159 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/31/2018: Defendant Villanueva is DISMISSED from this action; This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN JAMES JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. K. GRAVES, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:17-cv-01159-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 11) 16 17 Plaintiff Ryan James Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 13, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this case proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant K. 22 Graves for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other 24 claims against defendant Graves be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that plaintiff’s 25 claims against defendant Villanueva also be dismissed from this action, without leave to amend, 26 for failure to state a claim. (Id.) Plaintiff was given thirty days to file objections to those findings 27 and recommendations. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has 28 now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 2 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. The undersigned concludes the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 5 6 7 Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 13, 2017 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full; 2. This action proceeds solely on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Graves for deliberate 8 indifference to plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 9 Amendment; 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendant Graves are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 4. Defendant Villanueva is dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against that defendant; and 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 31, 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.
