(PC) Navarro v. Cate, et al.

Filing 271

ORDER ADOPTING 270 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/5/2021. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO LOUIS NAVARRO,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 270)

CATE, et al.,

15

No. 1:20-cv-00810-AWI-JLT (PC)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Mario Louis Navarro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local

20

Rule 302.

21

On October 11, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that

22

Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint (Doc. No. 117) states cognizable claims of retaliation against

23

Defendants Daveiga and Ruiz, but that its remaining claims are not cognizable. Doc. No. 268.

24

The magistrate judge directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to file a fourth-amended complaint

25

curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the

26

claims found cognizable. Id. at 10–11. The judge cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with

27

the order would result in a “recommend[ation] that this action proceed only on the claims found

28

cognizable . . . and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice.” Id. at 11.

1
2

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the order.
Accordingly, on December 1, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and

3

recommendations, recommending that (1) Defendants Adams, Brooks, Chastain, Comates, Davis,

4

Grannis, Guzman, Hough, Junious, Neri, Rosenthal, Sheppard-Brooks, and Wortmanbe be

5

dismissed, and (2) the claims in Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint be dismissed, except for its

6

claims of retaliation against Defendants Daveiga and Ruiz. Doc. No. 270. The findings and

7

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him fourteen days to file objections

8

thereto. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

11

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

14
15

are ADOPTED in full;
2.

16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on December 1, 2020 (Doc. No. 270),

Defendants Adams, Brooks, Chastain, Comates, Davis, Grannis, Guzman, Hough,
Junious, Neri, Rosenthal, Sheppard-Brooks, and Wortmanbe are DISMISSED;

3.

The claims in Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint (Doc. No. 117) are

18

DISMISSED, except for its claims of retaliation against Defendants Daveiga and

19

Ruiz, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

20

4.

21
22

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to rename this case “Navarro v. Daveiga, et
al.”; and

5.

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

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2021
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2