(PC) Salinas v. Pogue et al, No. 1:2016cv00520 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/26/2018: The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Herrerafrom this case on the courts docket; and This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings,including initiation of service of process.(Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW V. SALINAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 1:16-cv-00520-DAD-GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KENNETH J. POGUE, et al., (Doc. No. 46) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Matthew V. Salinas is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 16, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Gomness and 22 Palmer for violation of the ADA and related state claims. (Doc. No. 46.) Plaintiff was provided 23 an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.) 24 On February 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the findings and 25 recommendations, stating that he is willing to proceed in this action only against defendants 26 Gomness and Palmer for violation of the ADA and related state claims. (Doc. No. 47.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 28 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 1 1 2 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 3 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on February 16, 4 2018 (Doc. No. 46) are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds with plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed on 5 6 January 19, 2018, against defendants Gomness and Palmer, for violation of the 7 ADA and related state claims; 8 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 9 4. Defendant Herrera is dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to state any 10 claims against him; 5. Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation is dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to 11 12 state a claim; 13 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Herrera from this case on the court’s docket; and 14 15 7. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, 16 17 18 including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
