From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foust v. Ali

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:19-cv-02579-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-02579-DAD-DMC (PC)

11-08-2022

CARL FOUST, Plaintiff, v. ALI, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 91)

Plaintiff Carl Foust 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 October 26, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's second amended complaint and found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against defendant Ali for retaliation, but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims against defendant Ali or the other defendants. (Doc. No. 82.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable in the screening order within thirty (30) days after service of that order. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff did not timely file a third amended complaint or notify the court of his intent to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable.

Accordingly, on December 9, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case proceed on plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Ali, but that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 91.) The pending 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.

This case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 149.)

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 December 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 91) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Ali;
3. All other claims and named defendants are dismissed;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant D. Long has been terminated as a named defendant in this action; and
5. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Foust v. Ali

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:19-cv-02579-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Foust v. Ali

Case Details

Full title:CARL FOUST, Plaintiff, v. ALI, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 8, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-02579-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)