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