(PC) Martin v. Gutierrez et al, No. 1:2022cv00600 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 09/29/2022. Defendants A. Montoya, R. Chavez, and E. Guthery terminated. Case is Referred back to Magistrate Judge. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:22-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. GUTIERREZ, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendant. (ECF No. 16) 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Jared Andrew Martin is a county jail inmate and former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 21 granted leave either to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed 22 on the cognizable claim the Magistrate Judge identified. (ECF No.12.) On August 23, 2022, 23 Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on the sole cognizable claim in his 24 complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff noted that while he was willing to proceed on the claim 25 identified, he was not in agreement with the screening order. (Id.) 26 Pursuant to Plaintiff’s notification, on August 24, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued 27 findings and recommendations suggesting this action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint against 28 Defendant Gutierrez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 16.) 1 1 The Magistrate Judge further recommended dismissal of all other claims and defendants based on 2 Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and 3 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections would be due 4 within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 13.) The Court also noted that Plaintiff could raise 5 objections to the screening order in response to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) On 6 September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed timely objections. (ECF. No. 19.) Plaintiff’s objections generally set forth disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s 7 8 findings and recommendations. As Plaintiff supports his disagreements with the same types of 9 conclusory allegations set forth in his complaint, the Court finds no basis for setting aside the 10 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 12 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 13 objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 14 by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2022, (ECF No. 16), are adopted in full; 18 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 20, 2022, (ECF No. 19 1), against Defendant Gutierrez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment; 21 3. 22 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 4. 2 This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.