(PC) Howell v. Burns et al, No. 1:2019cv00568 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2020. Defendants J. Ceballos and the unnamed warden are dismissed. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00568-NONE-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. J. BURNES, et al., (Doc. No. 13) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the assigned 20 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that plaintiff’s 22 complaint (Doc. No. 1) states cognizable claims against Defendants J. Burnes, C. Gamboa, and A. 23 Randolph, but not against J. Ceballos and the unnamed warden of California State Prison, 24 Corcoran. (Doc. No. 10.) Pursuant to the screening order, plaintiff filed a notice that he “would 25 like to proceed . . . only on the claims found to be cognizable by the court . . . against Defendants 26 Burnes, Gamboa, and Randolph,” and that he “would like Defendants Ceballos and the warden to 27 be dismissed.” (Doc. No. 11.) Accordingly, on February 24, 2020, the magistrate judge issued 28 findings and recommendations, recommending that Ceballos and the warden be dismissed. (Doc. 1 No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen 2 (14) days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time do so 3 has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 6 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 The findings and recommendations filed on February 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendants J. Ceballos and the unnamed warden are dismissed; and, 11 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 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.