(PC) Arrellano-Lopez v. Gonzales ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE N. ARRELLANO-LOPEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-0093 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 14 J. GONZALES, et al., TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 19) 16 17 Jorge N. Arrellano-Lopez asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights while 18 incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (See Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge screened 19 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff 20 stated cognizable claims for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 21 Officer J. Gonzales and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin. 22 (See Doc. 19 at 6-9.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against 23 the other defendants. (Id. at 7-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action 24 proceed only on the cognizable claims, and that the Court dismiss all other claims and defendants. 25 (Id. at 13-14.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 27 any objections were due within thirty days. (Doc. 19 at 14.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 28 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.” 1 | Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 2 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 6, 2024 (Doc. 19) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This case SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claims for: (1) failure to protect in 9 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Officer J. Gonzales and (2) retaliation 10 in violation of the First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin. 11 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 12 4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ September 23, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28