(PC) Jones v. Speidell et al, No. 1:2016cv01335 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/27/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES B. JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SPEIDELL, et al., 15 No. 1:16-cv-01335-DAD-JLT ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 25) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Charles B. Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 23, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended complaint 22 and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s 23 retaliation claims against defendants R. Speidell and M. Stewart, and that all other claims and 24 defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 25.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days 26 after service. (Id. at 13.) On June 11, 2018, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 26.) 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 1 1 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 2 by proper analysis. 3 In his objections, plaintiff appears to misapprehend the scope of the recommendation set 4 forth in the findings and recommendations and, therefore, generally restates the allegations of his 5 complaint and contends that he has stated a claim for relief. Contrary to plaintiff’s statement, the 6 assigned magistrate judge has not recommended dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims. (See Doc. 7 No. 26 at 1.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections do not call the findings and recommendations 8 into question, and the court will adopt them in full. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended complaint 13 (Doc. No. 21) against defendants R. Speidell and M. Stewart for retaliation in 14 violation of the First Amendment; 15 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 16 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 17 18 19 20 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 27, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2