Fernandez v. Satterfield

Full title: JORGE FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SATTERFIELD, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 28, 2020

No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC)

04-28-2020

JORGE FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SATTERFIELD, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 17)

Plaintiff Jorge Fernandez 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 February 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that plaintiff's complaint states cognizable claims against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and C. Salzer,¹ but not against defendant Flores. (Doc. No. 13.) Pursuant to the screening order, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he elected to proceed only against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and C. Salzer on the claims found to be cognizable by the screening order rather than attempt to amend. (Doc. No. 14.)

1 Plaintiff states that he misspelled defendant C. Salzer's name as "Salazar" in his complaint. (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) Therefore, the magistrate judge substituted defendant "C. Salzer" for "Salazar" and directed the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to reflect the correction/substitution. (Doc. No. 18 at 1.) --------

Accordingly, on February 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Flores be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed.

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, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in full;

2. This action proceeds only against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and C. Salzer;

3. Defendant Flores is dismissed from this action; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE