(PC) Martinez v. Rodriguez

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claim signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/7/2025. (Deputy Clerk AML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. RODRIGUEZ,

15

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01495 JLT CDB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS A
CERTAIN CLAIM
(Doc. 38)

Defendant.

16
17

Ronald F. Martinez seeks to hold C. Rodriguez, a correctional officer at CSP Corcoran,

18

liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 34.) The magistrate

19

judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found he

20

stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. However, the

21

magistrate judge found “Plaintiff fails to state a due process violation” by Defendant. (Doc. 38 at

22

3-11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation

23

claim and “[t]he remaining claim or claims be dismissed.” (Id. at 11, emphasis omitted.)

24

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that

25

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 38 at 11.) The Court advised him that the “failure

26

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.”

27

(Id. at 12, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) In response,

28

Plaintiff filed a “Statement of No Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

1

Recommendations,” indicating that he “wants to proceed on the retaliation allegations, claim(s)

2

against defendant Officer Rodriguez.” (Doc. 39 at 1.)

3

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

4

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

5

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

6

1.

7
8

The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 19, 2024 (Doc. 38) are
ADOPTED in full.

2.

9

This action PROCEEDS only on the claim for retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s
First Amendment rights.

10

3.

Any remaining claim or claims are DISMISSED.

11

4.

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

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2025

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2