Opinion
1:19-cv-01421-NE-GSA-PC
11-19-2021
GEORGE GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL ORDER THAT THIS CASE PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANDERSON AND MCGRAW FOR RETALIATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND VIOLATION OF THE ADA; AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. NO. 8.)
George Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state 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).
On October 20, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff's retaliation claims and ADA claims against defendants Correctional Officers A. Anderson and K. McGraw, and that all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 10.) On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) 1
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 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on October 20, 2021 (Doc. No. 10), are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds only with plaintiff s retaliation claims and ADA claims against defendants Correctional Officers A. Anderson and K. McGraw;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;
4. Plaintiff s state law claims, claims for violation of his rights to equal protection, and claims for conspiracy are dismissed from this case based on plaintiffs failure to state a claim;
5. Plaintiff s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to bringing the claims in state court; and
6. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2