(PC)Figueroa v. Clark et al, No. 1:2019cv00968 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2020. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN FIGUEROA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00968-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KENNETH CLARK, et al., (Doc. No. 25) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 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 August 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be allowed to proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint with 22 respect to the following cognizable claims: (1) failure to provide outside exercise in violation of 23 the Eighth Amendment against defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallaghar, Alfaro, Goss, Juarez, 24 Hence, and Llamas; and (2) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause 25 against defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallaghar, Llamas, and Gamboa. (Doc. No. 26 25.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed 27 from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted and 28 that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. (Id.) 1 1 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 2 objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 20–21.) No objections 3 have been filed, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. 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 entire file, the court finds the findings 6 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 10 The findings and recommendations issued on August 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint with respect to the 11 following claims: 12 a. Failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment 13 against defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallaghar, Alfaro, Goss, Juarez, 14 Hence, and Llamas; and 15 b. Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause against 16 defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallaghar, Llamas, and 17 Gamboa; 18 3. 19 20 claim upon which relief may be granted; 4. 21 22 25 The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims; and 5. 23 24 All other federal claims and all other defendants are dismissed for failure to state a This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 28, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
