Valencia v. Gibson et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants from the Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/18/14. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABEL VALENCIA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [ECF NO. 19] 16 17 Case No.: 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB (PC) Plaintiff Abel Valencia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 4, 2012. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 14, 2013, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that 22 Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant D.J. Ruiz for retaliation and a cognizable due 23 process violation against Defendants D.J. Ruiz, A. Mayo, J.C. Garcia, J.C. Smith, S. Johnson, and an 24 unknown IGI officer. Plaintiff was given the option of filing an amended complaint or notifying the 25 Court of his intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. 26 On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only on the claims 27 found to be cognizable. Therefore, on February 24, 2014, a Findings and Recommendation was issued 28 to dismiss all other claims and defendants from the action. The Findings and Recommendation was 1 1 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 2 be filed within thirty days. No Objections were filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 4 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 5 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on February 24, 2014, is adopted in full; and 8 2. This action shall proceed against Defendant D.J. Ruiz for retaliation and against Defendants D.J. Ruiz, A. Mayo, J.C. Garcia, J.C. Smith, S. Johnson, and an unknown 9 IGI officer for a due process violation; 10 11 3. cognizable claim; and 12 13 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 18, 2014 17 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?