Raymond v. Martin, No. 1:2018cv00307 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing certain claims and The City of Bakersfield as a Defendant signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/30/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JAMES RAYMOND, successor in interest to decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford, Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT WARREN MARTIN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS A DEFENDANT Defendants. 16 (Doc. No. 7) 17 Plaintiff James Raymond is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action as the successor in 18 19 interest to his deceased son, Augustus Joshua Crawford. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred 20 to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rules 302 and 21 304. 22 On May 2, 2018, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued an order 23 directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed 24 only on claims alleged in his original complaint found to be cognizable by the court. (Doc. No. 25 5.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to allege cognizable claims under state 26 law due to his failure to plead in compliance with the Tort Claims Act. (Id. at 7–8.) In addition, 27 the magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against the City of 28 Bakersfield. (Id. at 13–15.) On May 21, 2018, plaintiff informed the court that he wished to 1 1 proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, on May 23, 2018, the 2 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action proceed 3 only on plaintiff’s claims of excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of 4 familial association against Officer Martin and that plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed. 5 (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 7 at 15.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for 7 doing so has passed. 8 9 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued May 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in 13 full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death, negligence, assault, and battery are dismissed; 15 3. Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Bakersfield are 16 dismissed; 17 4. The City of Bakersfield is terminated as a defendant in this action; 18 5. This action shall proceed only upon plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 for excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of familial 20 association against defendant Officer Martin; and 21 6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 22 23 24 25 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 30, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2