(PC) Davis v. Agundez et al, No. 1:2020cv00640 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/11/2021. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Davis v. Agundez et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNELL DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00640-DAD-JLT v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. AGUNDEZ, et al., (Doc. No. 18) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Cornell Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 17 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 26, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that 20 21 plaintiff could proceed only on his claims against defendants Agundez and Urrutia for their 22 alleged use of excessive force and against defendant Dominguez for alleged retaliation and that 23 all other claims were not cognizable. (Doc. No. 16). The magistrate judge directed plaintiff to 24 either file a first amended complaint in an attempt to curie the deficiencies identified with respect 25 to the other claims asserted in his complaint or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on 26 the claims found to be cognizable by the screening order. (Id. at 8.) On March 26, 2021, plaintiff 27 filed a notice that he did not intend to file an amended complaint, which the magistrate judge 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 construed as a notice that he wished to proceed only the claims found cognizable in the screening 2 order. (Doc. No. 18 at 1). 3 Thus, on May 20, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 4 recommending that this action be allowed to proceed against defendants Agundez and Urrutia for 5 their alleged use of excessive force and against defendant Dominguez for alleged retaliation and 6 recommending that all other claims and defendant Chavez be dismissed. (Doc. No. 18 at 8.) The 7 findings and recommendations served on plaintiff contained notice that any objections thereto 8 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) On June 14, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice1 that 9 he “[ac]cepted the recommendations,” which the court construes as a statement of plaintiff’s lack 10 of objection. (Doc. No. 19.) 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 12 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s statement of 13 no objection, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 14 proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 The findings and recommendations issued on May 20, 2021 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 18 2. This action shall proceed only against defendants Agundez and Urrutia for their 19 alleged use of excessive force and against defendant Dominguez for alleged 20 retaliation; 21 3. Defendant Chavez is dismissed from this action; 22 4. All other claims are dismissed from this action; and 23 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 24 25 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 28 July 11, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 1 The document was erroneously docketed as objections. 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.
