(PC) Grady v. Gutierrez et al, No. 1:2018cv00922 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations that Non-Cognizable Claims be Dismissed; This Matter is Referred to the Assigned Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings Consistent with this Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2019. (Orozco, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARQUISE GRADY, 12 No. 1:18-cv-00922-DAD-JDP Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE DISMISSED v. 14 C. GUTIERREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) 16 17 Plaintiff Marquise Grady is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 9, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff be 20 21 allowed to proceed on due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, Voong, and Lee. 22 (Doc. No. 13.) The magistrate judge also recommended that the remainder of plaintiff’s claims 23 be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 1.)1 The findings and recommendations were served on 24 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 25 service. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has since passed. 26 27 28 1 On September 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice with the court indicating that he was willing to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable in the July 3, 2019 screening order. (Doc. No. 12.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued on September 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full; 2. 8 This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, Voong, and Lee; 9 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 11 12 13 14 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.