(PC) Jackson v. Griffith, No. 1:2020cv00073 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/24/2022. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRED JAY JACKSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00073-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LYLE D. GRIFFITH, (Doc. No. 24) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Fred Jay Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed 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. 20 On April 13, 2022, following the screening of plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the 21 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the court dismiss 22 plaintiff’s procedural due process, equal protection, and access to courts claims brought against 23 defendant Griffith due to plaintiff’s failure to state cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 24.) The 24 pending findings and recommendations further recommended that plaintiff be permitted to 25 proceed on his substantive due process claim against defendant. (Id.) The findings and 26 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 27 to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not 28 filed any objections with the court and the time in which to do so has since passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued on April 13, 2022 (Doc. No. 22) are adopted; 2. 8 Plaintiff’s procedural due process, equal protection, and access to courts claims are dismissed; 9 3. This case will proceed solely on plaintiff’s substantive due process claim; and 10 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 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.
