(PC) Arrellano-Lopez v. Gonzales et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, and Directing the Clerk of Court to Update the Docket signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 09/23/2024. M. Childers, Ron Godwin, R. Kuhn, F. Nevarez, C. Vang, P. Chavez and P. Chavez terminated. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE N. ARRELLANO-LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
J. GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.

15

Case No. 1:23-cv-0093 JLT EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS,
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT
TO UPDATE THE DOCKET
(Doc. 19)

16
17

Jorge N. Arrellano-Lopez asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights while

18

incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (See Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge screened

19

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

20

stated cognizable claims for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

21

Officer J. Gonzales and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin.

22

(See Doc. 19 at 6-9.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against

23

the other defendants. (Id. at 7-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action

24

proceed only on the cognizable claims, and that the Court dismiss all other claims and defendants.

25

(Id. at 13-14.)

26

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

27

any objections were due within thirty days. (Doc. 19 at 14.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the

28

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.”
1

1

(Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file

2

objections, and the time to do so has passed.

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 August 6, 2024 (Doc. 19) are
ADOPTED in full.

2.

9

This case SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for: (1) failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Officer J. Gonzales and (2) retaliation

10

in violation of the First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin.

11

3.

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED.

12

4.

This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 23, 2024

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