From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Medina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC)

03-19-2020

KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. I. MEDINA, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 14)

Plaintiff Kareem Howell is a state prisoner appearing 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 November 21, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and found that he had stated cognizable claims against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro for retaliation in violation of his First Amendment right and deliberate indifference in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 8.) In that screening order, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in that screening order. (Id. at 6.) On January 14, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found by the screening order to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 13.)

Accordingly, on January 17, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff's retaliation and deliberate indifference claims against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro only and that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The January 17, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff's retaliation and failure to protect claims brought against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro; and

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Howell v. Medina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Howell v. Medina

Case Details

Full title:KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. I. MEDINA, et al., Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2020

Citations

No. 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)