(PC) Alexander v. Garza et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/14/2021. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JULIAN J. ALEXANDER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 1:20-cv-01486-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

GARZA, et al.
(Doc. No. 19)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Julian J. Alexander is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

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

19

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

20

On April 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hackworth,

22

Garza, Perez, Contreas, and Bonilla for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs

23

in violation of the Eighth Amendment and on his claims against defendants Perez, Bonilla,

24

Contreas, and Hackworth for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other

25

claims and defendants be dismissed from the action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable

26

claim for relief. (Doc. No. 19.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

27

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 8.)

28

No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

3

objections (Doc. No. 17), the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by

4

the record and by proper analysis.

5

Accordingly,

6

1.

adopted in full;

7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on April 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 19) are

2.

This action shall proceed only against defendants Hackworth, Garza, Perez,

9

Contreas, and Bonilla for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical

10

needs and on his retaliation claims against defendants Perez, Bonilla, Contreas,

11

and Hackworth, and that all other claims; and

12

3.

failure to state a claim.

13
14

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff’s

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated:

June 14, 2021

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2