(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield et al, No. 1:2019cv01220 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Defendant Flores signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/28/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE FERNANDEZ, 12 No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SATTERFIELD, et al., (Doc. No. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Jorge Fernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 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 February 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that 21 plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and 22 C. Salzer,1 but not against defendant Flores. (Doc. No. 13.) Pursuant to the screening order, 23 plaintiff filed a notice stating that he elected to proceed only against defendants Satterfield, 24 Eslick, Jackson, and C. Salzer on the claims found to be cognizable by the screening order rather 25 than attempt to amend. (Doc. No. 14.) 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff states that he misspelled defendant C. Salzer’s name as “Salazar” in his complaint. (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) Therefore, the magistrate judge substituted defendant “C. Salzer” for “Salazar” and directed the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to reflect the correction/substitution. (Doc. No. 18 at 1.) 1 1 Accordingly, on February 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that defendant Flores be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 3 17.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the findings and 4 recommendations. (Id. at 2.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has 5 passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 8 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly: 1. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in full; 2. 13 This action proceeds only against defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and C. Salzer; 14 3. Defendant Flores is dismissed from this action; and 15 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.