McLaughlin v. Castro

Full title: MARTIN MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. J. CASTRO, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 5, 2019

No. 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2019)

Opinion

No. 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT

09-05-2019

MARTIN MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. J. CASTRO, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAFMS

(Doc. No. 17)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on the following claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Riley, Magallanes, Castro, Perez, and DeAcevedo; (2) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Amaya; and (3) a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against defendants Castro and Magallanes. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Thereafter, on July 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, in which he also states that he wishes to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Riley, Magallanes, Castro, Perez, and DeAcevedo, and a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against defendants Castro and Magallanes;

3. All other claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5 , 2019

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE