(PC) Seymour v. Ledbetter ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON D. SEYMOUR, Case No.: 1:22-cv-0989 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIM 13 v. THREE IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 14 LEDBETTER, (Doc. 15) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Aaron D. Seymour seeks to hold the defendant liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation in 19 violation of the First Amendment and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment. (See Doc. 20 13 at 3-6.) However, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with 21 the Government Tort Claim Act, as required for his third claim for relief: “slander of character 22 [and] moral debilitation” and/or defamation. (Id. at 6-8.) 23 On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he did “not wish to file an amended 24 complaint [and] would like to proceed only on the First Amendment retaliation [and] Eighth 25 Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant Ledbetter.” (Doc. 14 at 1.) Therefore, the 26 magistrate judge recommended the action proceed on the cognizable claims, and the claim arising 27 under state law be dismissed. (Doc. 15) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff on June 21, 2023, and 1 | contained a notice that any objections were due within fourteen days of the date of service. (Doc. 2 | 15 at 2.) The Court advised him that “[flailure to file objections within the specified time may 3 | result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 4 | Cir. 2014) (citing 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 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 1, 2023 (Doc. 15) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation in violation 12 of the First Amendment (claim one) and failure to protect under the Eighth 13 Amendment (claim two). 14 3. The remaining claim (claim three) is DISMISSED. 15 4. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _July 17, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28