(PC) Snowden v. Tate et al, No. 1:2019cv00843 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/4/2020. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL L. SNOWDEN, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:19-cv-00843-AWI-JLT Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. H. TATE; M. TOSCANO, (Doc. 13) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel L. Snowden is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action under 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. 20 On January 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that 21 Plaintiff states cognizable claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical 22 needs but fails to state a cognizable due process claim. (Doc. 10.) The magistrate judge granted 23 Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court that he wishes to proceed only on 24 his retaliation and deliberate indifference claims. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff filed a motion 25 requesting that the court “remove the ‘due process violation claim’” and allow him to proceed on 26 the “deliberate indifference and retaliation” claims. (Doc. 11.) 27 28 Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the claims in this action, except for Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to 1 serious medical needs in violation of the First and Eighth amendments. (Doc. 13.) The findings 2 and recommendations provided Plaintiff 14 days to file objections thereto. (Id.) More than the 3 allowed time has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 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, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. ADOPTED in full; 9 10 2. The claims in this action are DISMISSED, except for Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2020 (Doc. 13) are 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2020 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.