(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)

Download PDF
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

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?