Dominguez v. Padilla

Full title: MARVIN DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. F. PADILLA, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 19, 2020

1:18-cv-001731-NONE-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. May. 19, 2020)

Opinion

1:18-cv-001731-NONE-GSA-PC

05-19-2020

MARVIN DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. F. PADILLA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. No. 15.)

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT PADILLA FOR RETALIATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Plaintiff Marvin Dominguez is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action 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 April 10, 2020, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Padilla for retaliation under the First Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations.

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 15), are adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on December 18, 2019, with only Plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant C/O F. Padilla, but no other claims;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

4. The Clerk is directed to reflect on the docket that defendant Padilla is the only defendant in this case; and;

5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE