(PC) Stevens v. Martinez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-1144 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING THE 14 C. MARTINEZ, CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendant. (Doc. 25) 16 17 Lyralisa Lavena Stevens seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated cognizable Fourteenth 20 Amendment equal protection claims but no other cognizable claims. Therefore, the Court granted 21 Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint or proceed upon the claims found 22 cognizable. (See generally Doc. 23.) In response, Plaintiff informed the Court that she was 23 willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 24.) 24 The magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending this 25 action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against 26 Defendants Martinez and Peterson and that the remaining claims be dismissed. The magistrate 27 judge also recommended and that the docket be modified to add N. Peterson as a defendant named in the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.) 1 The Court served Plaintiff the Findings and Recommendations and notified him that any 2 | objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at 2.) The Court advised that the “[f]ailure to file 3 | objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 4 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed 5 | objections. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 7 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 8 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 9 | ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 13, 2023 (Doc. 25) are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal 13 protection claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson. 14 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket in this action to add N. 16 Peterson as a defendant. 17 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _December 7, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28