Villery v. Jones et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that Plaintiff shall proceed in this action on his First Amendment Claims against Defendants Jones, Schmidt, Yerton, Escarcega and Nelson, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/10/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JARED VILLERY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-01360-DAD-MJS

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

JAY JONES, et al.,
(Doc. No. 19)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 13, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended

21

complaint and found that it states cognizable First Amendment claims against defendants Jones,

22

Schmidt, Yerton, Escarcega and Nelson, but no other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 19.) The

23

magistrate judge therefore recommended that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on the cognizable

24

claims identified in the screening order, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed

25

from this action. The parties were provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and

26

recommendations. (Id.) To date, neither party has done so, and the time for doing so has now

27

passed.

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

adopted in full;
2.

8
9

12

Plaintiff shall proceed in this action on his First Amendment claims against
defendants Jones, Schmidt, Yerton, Escarcega and Nelson; and

3.

10
11

The findings and recommendations issued November 13, 2017 (Doc. No. 19) are

All other claims alleged in plaintiff’s first amended complaint and all other
defendants named therein are dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2