(PC) Gordon v. Marquez et al, No. 1:2018cv01223 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims, and REFERRING Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARROD GORDON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:18-cv-01223-DAD-SAB (PC) v. SHELIA MARQUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS 16 (Doc. No. 11) 17 Plaintiff Jarrod Gordon is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 4, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 22 found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against defendants Marquez, Gipson, Yang, and 23 Westcare for denial of free exercise of religion and equal protection, and a cognizable claim 24 against defendant Marquez for retaliation. (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge found that 25 plaintiff did not state any other cognizable claims for relief. (Id.) The magistrate judge granted 26 plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or notify the court in writing of his intent to proceed only 27 on the claims found cognizable. (Id.) 28 ///// 1 1 On October 17 and 18, 2018, plaintiff notified the court of his intent to proceed only on 2 the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) As a result, on 3 October 19, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 4 this action proceed on the claims outlined above, and that all other claims be dismissed from the 5 action. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 6 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file 7 objections and time period for doing so has expired. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 9 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 10 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly: 12 1. The finding and recommendations issued on October 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. This action shall proceed against defendants Marquez, Gipson, Yang, and 15 Westcare for denial of free exercise of religion and equal protection, and against 16 defendant Marquez for retaliation; 17 3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a cognizable 18 claim for relief; and 19 4. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of 20 21 22 23 process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2