Smith v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION for Action to Proceed on First Amendment Claim Against Defendant Martinez and to DISMISS all other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/17/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

EARL D. SMITH,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MARTINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1: 17-cv-01092-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION TO
PROCEED ON FIRST AMENDMENT
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
MARTINEZ AND TO DISMISS ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF NO. 16)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On November 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint and found that it states a cognizable First Amendment claim against
Defendant Martinez, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was ordered
to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the
cognizable claim. (Id.) Plaintiff chose to proceed on the claim found cognizable by the
Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge then issued findings and
recommendations for Plaintiff to proceed on the cognizable claim identified in the
screening order, and for all other claims and Defendants to be dismissed. No objections

1

were filed. Instead, Plaintiff filed a second request to proceed on the cognizable claim.

2

(ECF No. 18.)

3

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

4

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

5

Court finds the findings and recommendation and the screening order to be supported

6

by the record and by proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9
10

(ECF No. 16) in full;
2.

11
12
13

The Court adopts the November 22, 2017 findings and recommendation

Plaintiff shall proceed on his First Amendment claim for money damages
against Defendant Martinez; and

3.

All other claims and Defendants asserted in the first amended complaint
are dismissed with prejudice.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2