(PC) Shanks v. Mendez et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DARREN SHANKS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
E. MENDEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 1:20-cv-01083-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 18)

Plaintiff Darren Shanks is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found

21

that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against defendants E. Mendez and D. Lopez for retaliation

22

in violation of the First Amendment, but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims

23

against these defendants. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or

24

notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the

25

screening order within thirty (30) days after service of the screening order. (Id. at 9.)

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

On October 9, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice suggesting that if he had not submitted an amended

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

complaint by the thirty-day deadline, he wished to proceed on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. No.
16.)1 Consequently, on October 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim brought against
defendants E. Mendez and D. Lopez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. No.
18.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims brought 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

10
11
12

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.
Accordingly,

13

1.

14

adopted in full;

15
2.

16

This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendants E. Mendez and D.
Lopez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

17
3.

19

All other claims are dismissed; and

4.

18

20

The findings and recommendations issued on October 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 18) are

This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
Dated:
22

November 17, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff’s notice also reiterates his request for counsel. (Doc. No. 16.) The magistrate judge
already declined to appoint counsel for plaintiff (Doc. No. 16), and plaintiffs’ renewed request fails to
justify the appointment of volunteer counsel.
1

28

2