Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-00715-LJO-SAB (PC)
11-22-2019
KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. MR. J. BURNES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 12)
Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 8, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against Defendants Burnes, Babb, Tumacder, and Sexton for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and conspiracy; against Defendant Sanchez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant Padrnos for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. (ECF No. 9.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Id.)
On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the Court on October 8, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)
On October 25, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Burnes, Babb, Tumacder, and Sexton for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and conspiracy; against Defendant Sanchez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant Padrnos for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from the action. (ECF No. 12.) 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 3.) 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 25, 2019, (ECF No. 12), are adopted in full;/// /// ///
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, filed on May 22, 2019, (ECF No. 1,) against Defendants Burnes, Babb, Tumacder, and Sexton for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and conspiracy; against Defendant Sanchez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant Padrnos for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22 , 2019
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE