(PC) Martinez v. Rodriguez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD F. MARTINEZ, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01495 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS A 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIM

14 C. RODRIGUEZ, (Doc. 38)

15 Defendant.

16 17 Ronald F. Martinez seeks to hold C. Rodriguez, a correctional officer at CSP Corcoran, 18 liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 34.) The magistrate 19 judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found he 20 stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. However, the 21 magistrate judge found “Plaintiff fails to state a due process violation” by Defendant. (Doc. 38 at 22 3-11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation 23 claim and “[t]he remaining claim or claims be dismissed.” (Id. at 11, emphasis omitted.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 25 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 38 at 11.) The Court advised him that the “failure 26 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 27 (Id. at 12, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) In response, Plaintiff filed a “Statement of No Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 1 | Recommendations,” indicating that he “wants to proceed on the retaliation allegations, claim(s) 2 | against defendant Officer Rodriguez.” (Doc. 39 at 1.) 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 December 19, 2024 (Doc. 38) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This action PROCEEDS only on the claim for retaliation in violation of Plaintiffs 9 First Amendment rights. 10 3. Any remaining claim or claims are DISMISSED. 11 4. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: _ January 7, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28