Washington v. Gamboa, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/16/20/17. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE WASHINGTON,

12
13

No. 1:17-cv-00302-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

14

H. GAMBOA and R. ROQUE,

15

Defendants.

(Doc. No. 11)

16
17

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s initial

19

complaint, which was filed on March 3, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 17, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that this action proceed against defendants H. Gamboa and R. Roque on plaintiff’s

23

claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and related state claims, and that all

24

other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 11.) On June 26, 2017,

25

plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.)

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

28

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
1

1

by the record and proper analysis.

2

Accordingly,

3

1. The May 17, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full;

4

2. This action proceeds only against defendants H. Gamboa and R. Roque on plaintiff’s

5

claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and related state claims;

6

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and

7

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

8
9
10

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 16, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2