(PC) Jones v. Brownen et al, No. 2:2022cv01707 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/27/2023 ADOPTING 15 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Following plaintiff's notice of election, this case proceeds only on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Brown en under the First Amendment for retaliation and Plaintiff's claim against defendant Rangel under the Fourteenth Amendment for a due process violation; all other claims are dismissed with prejudice. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Jones v. Brownen et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELL JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-01707 KJM DB P v. ORDER B. BROWNEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 26, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2023 (ECF No. 15), are adopted in 5 6 full. 2. Following plaintiff’s notice of election, this case proceeds only on plaintiff’s claim 7 against defendant Brownen under the First Amendment for retaliation and plaintiff’s claim 8 against defendant Rangel under the Fourteenth Amendment for a due process violation; all other 9 claims are dismissed with prejudice. 10 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial 11 proceedings. 12 DATED: July 27, 2023. 13 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.