Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-01750-NONE-SKO (PC)
07-01-2020
JOSHUA BLAND, Plaintiff, v. D. MOFFETT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 12)
Plaintiff Joshua Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Moffett and cognizable failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Jaime and Stark. (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge found none of plaintiff's other claims to be cognizable. (Id.) The magistrate judge directed plaintiff, within 21 days, to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. at 7.) The judge cautioned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 8.) Although more than 21 days passed, plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or notice or to otherwise respond to the screening order.
Accordingly, on May 22, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending (1) that Defendants Bryan, Castellanos, Luna, Stane, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation be dismissed from this action, and (2) that all claims in plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, except for the retaliation claim against Defendant Moffett and the failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Jaime and Stark. (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen (14) days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice that "he'll proceed upon the cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Moffett and the cognizable failure to protect claims against Defendants Jaime and Stark." (Doc. No. 13.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff's notice, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Defendants Bryan, Castellanos, Luna, Stane, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are dismissed from this action;
3. All claims in plaintiff's complaint are dismissed with prejudice, except for plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Moffett and his claims of failure to protect against Defendants Jaime and Stark upon which this action shall proceed; and,
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Dated: July 1 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE