Opinion
1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC)
08-16-2021
JORGE FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SATTERFIELD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(DOC. NO. 45)
Plaintiff Jorge Fernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 June 7, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's second amended complaint (“SAC”) and found that plaintiff had state cognizable claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Salzer, Bick, Boyette, Darby, and Flores-Hernandez, but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 43 at 7-12.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint in an attempt to cure the cited deficiencies or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order within twenty-one (21) days of service of that order. (Id. at 12-13.) On June 21, 2021, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. Nos. 44.)
Accordingly, on June 23, 2021, the magistrate judge issued new findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order of plaintiff s SAC-specifically, plaintiffs retaliation claims against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Salzer, Bick, Boyette, Darby, and Flores-Hernandez (Doc. No. 45 at 1.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims brought, and all other defendants named, by plaintiff in his SAC be dismissed from this action. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) No. objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.
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, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 45) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff s retaliation claims against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Salzer, Bick, Boyette, Darby, and Flores-Hernandez;
3. All other claims and named defendants are dismissed;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to include the defendants that plaintiff named in his second amended complaint; and
5. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.