(PC) Madrid v. De La Cruz, et al., No. 1:2018cv00947 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 1 , 18 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/4/2018: This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID JOSEPH MADRID, 12 No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. Nos. 1, 18) 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Joseph Madrid is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 24, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants A. De La Cruz 23 and M. Lopez on claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, retaliation, 24 unreasonable search, and excessive force, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. 25 (Doc. No. 18). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 26 that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id. at 13.) On 27 October 11, 2018, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 19.) 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 4 by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not call into question the conclusions 5 reached by the assigned magistrate judge. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 9 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 2. This case proceeds against defendants A. De La Cruz and M. Lopez on plaintiff’s 10 claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, retaliation, 11 unreasonable search, and excessive force; 12 3. 13 14 recommendations; 4. 17 18 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of all defendants on the court’s docket, except for defendants A. De La Cruz and M. Lopez; and 15 16 All other claims and defendants are dismissed, as discussed in the findings and 5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2