Matthew V. Salinas v. Pogue et al
Filing
51
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/26/2018: The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Herrerafrom this case on the courts docket; and This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings,including initiation of service of process.(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MATTHEW V. SALINAS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 1:16-cv-00520-DAD-GSA (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
KENNETH J. POGUE, et al.,
(Doc. No. 46)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Matthew V. Salinas is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action 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 February 16, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
21
recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Gomness and
22
Palmer for violation of the ADA and related state claims. (Doc. No. 46.) Plaintiff was provided
23
an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.)
24
On February 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the findings and
25
recommendations, stating that he is willing to proceed in this action only against defendants
26
Gomness and Palmer for violation of the ADA and related state claims. (Doc. No. 47.)
27
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
28
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
1
1
2
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
3
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on February 16,
4
2018 (Doc. No. 46) are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds with plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed on
5
6
January 19, 2018, against defendants Gomness and Palmer, for violation of the
7
ADA and related state claims;
8
3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;
9
4. Defendant Herrera is dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to state any
10
claims against him;
5. Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation is dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to
11
12
state a claim;
13
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Herrera
from this case on the court’s docket; and
14
15
7. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings,
16
17
18
including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 26, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?