(PC) Martinez v. Galvin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01079 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN 13 v. ) CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT H. MOSSELEY, ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 J. GALVIN, et al., ) UPDATE THE DOCKET ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 14) ) 16 )

17 Jose Antonio Martinez seeks to hold the defendants J. Galvin, D. Burns, and H. Mosseley liable 18 for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, asserting the defendants 19 wrongfully confiscated or destroyed photos he received in the mail. (See generally Doc. 12.) The 20 magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found 21 Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against J. Galvin and D. Burns for violation of his First Amendment 22 rights. (Id. at 6, 8.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiffs’ remaining claims—including all 23 claims against H. Mosseley—were not cognizable. (Id. at 4-8.) The magistrate judge recommended 24 the action proceed only on Plaintiff’s cognizable claim for a violation of the First Amendment, and the 25 Court dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Id. at 9.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 27 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 14 at 9.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 28 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate 1 judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 2 |) Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 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 are 5 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 2, 2025 (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED in 7 full. 8 2. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiffs claim against Defendants J. Galvin anc 9 D. Burns for violation of the First Amendment, as stated in the amended complaint. 10 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate H. Mosseley as a 12 defendant. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ May 6, 2025 ( uf Twn 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28