(PC) Smith v. Allison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FREDERICK WAYNE SMITH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01580-JLT-SAB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 11 RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 12 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 13 (Doc. 14) Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Frederick Wayne Smith is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s 18 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims 19 against Defendant Rodriguez for retaliation, deliberate indifference to safety, and denial of 20 access to the courts. (Doc. 14.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s remaining 21 claims failed. Therefore, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff the option to file an amended 22 complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims. 23 (Doc. 14.) 24 On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he accepted the Court’s findings 25 concerning the cognizable claims. (Doc. 13 at 1.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued 26 Findings and Recommendations, recommending the action proceed only against Defendant 27 Rodriguez for retaliation, deliberate indifference to safety, and denial of access to the courts. 1 2023, and contained a notice that ay objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. 2 | Ud. at 2.) Plaintiff was also informed the “[fJailure to file objections within the specified time 3 | may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 4 Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file 5 | objections, and the time to do so has expired. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 7 |case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 8 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court 9 | ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 8, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 11 ADOPTED. 12 2. This action shall proceed only on Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Rodriguez 13 for retaliation, deliberate indifference to safety, and denial of access to the courts. 14 3. All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 15 4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 7 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _April 3, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28