(PC) Howell v. Cruz, et al., No. 1:2019cv00782 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/21/19. C. Gonzalez and G Magana Terminated. Matter referred back to Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)

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 No. 1:19-cv-00782-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 K. CRUZ, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 12, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that 20 21 plaintiff had stated a cognizable retaliation claim against defendants Cruz, Borona, Raishke and 22 Randolph, and a cognizable excessive force claim against defendant Raishke. (Doc. No. 7.) 23 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to 24 proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the screening order within thirty days after 25 service of the screening order. (Id. at 9–10.) On July 17, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his 26 willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the magistrate judge in the 27 screening order. (Doc. No. 10.) 28 ///// 1 1 Consequently, on July 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against 3 defendants Cruz, Borona, Raishke, and Randolph, and on plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim 4 against defendant Raishke. (Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other 5 claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served 6 on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days 7 after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted 13 14 in full; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendants Cruz, 15 Borona, Raishke, and Randolph, and on plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim against 16 defendant Raishke; 17 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 18 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 19 20 21 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.