Stratmon v. Tucker et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/2/2014 RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT, MORRIS FOR RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH INCOMING MAIL, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 10/27/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID L. STRATMON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
M. TUCKER, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:12-cv-01837-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT
MORRIS FOR RETALIATION AND
INTERFERENCE WITH INCOMING MAIL,
AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY,
TWENTY 20 DAYS

17

DUE

WITHIN

18
19
20

David L. Stratmon (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

21

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

22

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 9,

23

2012. (Doc. 1.)

24

The court screened Plaintiff=s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that

25

it states cognizable Bivens claims against defendant Morris (Factory Manager) for retaliation

26

and interference with incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On

27

August 14, 2014, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the

28

court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 11.)
1

1

On September 12, 2014 and September 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed notices informing the court that

2

he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims against defendant Morris. (Docs. 12,

3

13.)

4

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

5

1.

This action proceed only against defendant A. Morris (Factory Manager) for

6

retaliation and interference with Plaintiff’s mail, in violation of the First and

7

Fourteenth Amendments;

8

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

9

3.

Defendants M. Tucker (Assistant Warden), M. Suhota (Foreman), and E. Stokes

10

(Foreman) be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any

11

Bivens claims upon which relief may be granted against them; and

12

4.

Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful termination be dismissed from this action based
on Plaintiff’s failure to state a Bivens claim.

13
14

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

16

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may

17

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

18

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ The parties are advised that failure to file

19

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order.

20

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21
22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 2, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2