Hoffman v. Coyle et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Retaliation Claim signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/12/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01617-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
RETALIATION CLAIM

v.
TIMOTHY PRESTON,

15

(ECF Nos. 42, 43)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

19

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

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

21

On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Timothy

22

Preston.

23

Recommendations recommending that this action proceed against Defendant Preston for violations

24

of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 43.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that

25

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim

26

for relief under Bivens. (Id.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and

27

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service.

(ECF No. 42.)

On April 25, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

28
1

1

(Id.) More than thirty days have passed since the Findings and Recommendations were served, and

2

no objections have been filed.

3

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

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

5

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9
10

adopted in full;
2.

11
12

This action shall proceed against Defendant Preston for violations of the Eighth
Amendment;

3.

13
14

The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 25, 2019, (ECF No. 43), are

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief under Bivens; and

4.

This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 12, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2