(PC) Howell v. Do Canto et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action shall proceed on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant: M. Do Canto for Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; all other claims and defendants are Dismissed; ORDE RED to refer to action back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2020. M. Mason (Correctional Officer at CSP Corcoran) and C. Munoz (Correctional Lieutenant at CSP-Corcoran) terminated. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00854-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. M. DO CANTO, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (Doc. No. 14) 16 17 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint in this 21 action and found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against defendant M. Do Canto for 22 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but that plaintiff had failed to state any other 23 cognizable claims against defendant M. Do Canto or any other named defendants. (Doc. No. 11.) 24 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to 25 proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order within thirty (30) days 26 after service of the screening order. (Id. at 12.) On September 3, 2020, plaintiff notified the court 27 that he was willing to proceed only on the claim identified by the magistrate judge in the 28 screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 12.) 1 1 Consequently, on September 8, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim brought against 3 defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 14.) The 4 magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims brought and defendants named by 5 plaintiff in his complaint be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were 6 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 7 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do 8 so has now passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 11 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on September 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full; 2. 16 This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 17 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 18 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 19 20 21 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?