(PC) Navarro v. Cate, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO LOUIS NAVARRO,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
(Doc. No. 270)
CATE, et al.,
No. 1:20-cv-00810-AWI-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff Mario Louis Navarro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action under 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 Eastern District of California Local
On October 11, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that
Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint (Doc. No. 117) states cognizable claims of retaliation against
Defendants Daveiga and Ruiz, but that its remaining claims are not cognizable. Doc. No. 268.
The magistrate judge directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to file a fourth-amended complaint
curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the
claims found cognizable. Id. at 10–11. The judge cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with
the order would result in a “recommend[ation] that this action proceed only on the claims found
cognizable . . . and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice.” Id. at 11.
Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the order.
Accordingly, on December 1, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that (1) Defendants Adams, Brooks, Chastain, Comates, Davis,
Grannis, Guzman, Hough, Junious, Neri, Rosenthal, Sheppard-Brooks, and Wortmanbe be
dismissed, and (2) the claims in Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint be dismissed, except for its
claims of retaliation against Defendants Daveiga and Ruiz. Doc. No. 270. The findings and
recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him fourteen days to file objections
thereto. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
are ADOPTED in full;
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;
The claims in Plaintiff’s third-amended complaint (Doc. No. 117) are
DISMISSED, except for its claims of retaliation against Defendants Daveiga and
Ruiz, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to rename this case “Navarro v. Daveiga, et
This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2021
SENIOR 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?