Opinion
1:21-cv-00086-DAD-BAM (PC)
09-23-2021
MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., Plaintiff, v. D. LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (DOC. NO. 18)
Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 August 23, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed in part. (Doc. No. 18.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff stated a cognizable First Amendment claim for retaliation and a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against defendant Martinez. (Doc. No. 18.) The findings and recommendations recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action due to plaintiff's failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 7.) On September 10, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) Therein, plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in his first amended complaint, which the assigned magistrate judge addressed thoroughly in the pending findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 28) are adopted in full;
2. This action proceeds only on plaintiff s First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendant Martinez;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.