Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MCDANIEL, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF NO. 40)

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO 

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS DAVIS, CHAVEZ, AND

LOYD FOR VIOLATION OF DUE 

PROCESS, AND DISMISSING ALL 

OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Robert McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds 

on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint filed on August 11, 2016. (ECF No. 39). The matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302. 

On September 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Davis, 

Chavez, and Lloyd for violation of due process, and that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff 

was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within 

thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings 

and recommendations.

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 41 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

September 8, 2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on 

August 11, 2016, against defendants Davis, Chavez, and Lloyd for violation of 

due process;

3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Capt. Overstreet, 

Sgt. Cunningham, R. Cipriani, I.D. Clay, Matthew Cate, N. Grannis, and R. 

Manual on the court’s docket; and

5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 41 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2