(PC) Grigsby v. Pfeiffer, et al., No. 1:2017cv01384 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/16/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN GRIGSBY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:17-cv-01384-DAD-JLT (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. PFEIFFER, et al., (Doc. No. 35) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jonathan Grigsby is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 21 recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim 22 against defendant M. Hernandez and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 23 35.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) On August 25 2, 2019, plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations.1 (Doc. No. 36.) 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff also filed objections on September 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 37.) These objections are missing the second page and include two additional pages of exhibits, but otherwise appear to be identical to plaintiff’s August 2, 2019 objections. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 4 by the record and proper analysis. 5 Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s untimely 6 objections. In those objections, plaintiff states that he is ready to proceed on his First 7 Amendment retaliation claim against defendant M. Hernandez. (Doc. No. 36 at 1.) Nevertheless, 8 plaintiff subsequently reiterates conclusory allegations from his “Amended Complaint and 9 Demand for Jury Trial,” (Doc. No. 34), which the magistrate judge construed as notice of 10 plaintiff’s intent to stand on his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 35 at 1.) The undersigned 11 agrees with the magistrate judge’s interpretation and construes plaintiff’s objections as further 12 notice of his intent to stand on his first amended complaint. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 11, 2019, (Doc. No. 35), are adopted in 15 16 full; 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 17 defendant M. Hernandez, and all other claims and defendants are dismissed from this 18 action; and 19 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 20 21 22 with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 16, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.