(PC) Garcia v. Baldwin, et al., No. 1:2019cv00184 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/2021. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO GARCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00184-DAD-SAB (PC) v. M. BALDWIN, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 56) 16 17 Plaintiff Guillermo Garcia is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 September 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint and found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against defendants F.X. Chavez and 23 J. Kavanaugh for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed to state any other 24 cognizable claims against any other defendants. (Doc. No. 54.) Plaintiff was ordered to either 25 file a second amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the 26 cognizable claim. (Id. at 15–16.) On October 1, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his 27 willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the court. (Doc. No. 55.) 28 ///// 1 1 Consequently, on October 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations that this action proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint only against 3 defendants F.X. Chavez and J. Kavanaugh for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, 4 and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 56.) The findings and 5 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 6 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) After receiving four extensions of 7 time, plaintiff filed timely objections on February 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 65.) Plaintiff’s objections primarily reiterate his allegations from his first amended complaint, 8 9 but do not address the reasoning of the magistrate judge in the pending findings and 10 recommendations. (Id.) Additionally, plaintiff argues that his state law claims were timely filed 11 within the applicable statute of limitations period. (Id. at 11.) The assigned magistrate judge 12 considered the sufficiency of these allegations in the pending findings and recommendations. In 13 short, plaintiff’s arguments advanced in his objections to the pending findings and 14 recommendations are unpersuasive. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 16 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 17 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 18 by the record and proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. 21 The findings and recommendations issued on October 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 56) are adopted in full; 22 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against defendants 23 F.X. Chavez and J. Kavanaugh for retaliation in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment; 25 3. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action; and 2 1 4. 2 3 4 This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 16, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
