(PC) Howell v. Medina et al, No. 1:2020cv00114 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims a Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MEDINA, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Case No.: 1:20-cv-00114-NONE-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 15) Plaintiff Kareen J. Howell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 21 22 that plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. 23 Navarro, A. Randolph, and J. Gallagher. (Doc. No. 12.) The court granted plaintiff leave to file an 24 amended complaint or notify the court of intent to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. 25 (Id.) 26 On February 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the retaliation claim found 27 to be cognizable and dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Doc. No. 13.) On February 21, 2020, 28 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action 1 1 proceed against defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. Navarro, A. Randolph, and J. Gallagher for 2 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 15.) The magistrate judge also 3 recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id.) The findings and 4 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be 5 filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to 6 do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court 8 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 9 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. adopted; 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on February 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are 2. This action shall proceed against defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. Navarro, A. Randolph, and J. Gallagher for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 14 15 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action, without prejudice; and 16 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 17 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 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.