Jones v. Speidell et al
Filing
28
ORDER adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/27/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES B. JONES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
SPEIDELL, et al.,
15
No. 1:16-cv-01335-DAD-JLT
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 25)
16
17
18
Plaintiff Charles B. Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
19
this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
20
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On May 23, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended complaint
22
and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s
23
retaliation claims against defendants R. Speidell and M. Stewart, and that all other claims and
24
defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 25.) The findings and recommendations were served on
25
plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days
26
after service. (Id. at 13.) On June 11, 2018, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 26.)
27
28
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
1
1
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
2
by proper analysis.
3
In his objections, plaintiff appears to misapprehend the scope of the recommendation set
4
forth in the findings and recommendations and, therefore, generally restates the allegations of his
5
complaint and contends that he has stated a claim for relief. Contrary to plaintiff’s statement, the
6
assigned magistrate judge has not recommended dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims. (See Doc.
7
No. 26 at 1.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections do not call the findings and recommendations
8
into question, and the court will adopt them in full.
9
10
Accordingly,
1.
11
12
The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 25) are
adopted in full;
2.
This action shall proceed on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended complaint
13
(Doc. No. 21) against defendants R. Speidell and M. Stewart for retaliation in
14
violation of the First Amendment;
15
3.
All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
16
4.
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
17
18
19
20
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 27, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?