Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00307-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RAYMOND, successor in interest 

to decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARREN MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND THE 

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS A 

DEFENDANT

(Doc. No. 7)

Plaintiff James Raymond is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action as the successor in 

interest to his deceased son, Augustus Joshua Crawford. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred 

to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rules 302 and 

304. 

On May 2, 2018, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued an order 

directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed 

only on claims alleged in his original complaint found to be cognizable by the court. (Doc. No. 

5.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to allege cognizable claims under state 

law due to his failure to plead in compliance with the Tort Claims Act. (Id. at 7–8.) In addition, 

the magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against the City of 

Bakersfield. (Id. at 13–15.) On May 21, 2018, plaintiff informed the court that he wished to 

Case 1:18-cv-00307-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 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

2

proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, on May 23, 2018, the 

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action proceed 

only on plaintiff’s claims of excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of 

familial association against Officer Martin and that plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed. 

(Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 7 at 15.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for 

doing so has passed. 

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.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued May 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in 

full;

2. Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death, negligence, assault, and battery are dismissed;

3. Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Bakersfield are 

dismissed;

4. The City of Bakersfield is terminated as a defendant in this action; 

5. This action shall proceed only upon plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

for excessive use of force, failure to provide medical care, and loss of familial 

association against defendant Officer Martin; and 

6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2018 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00307-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 2