(PC) McClintock v. Valencia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MCCLINTOCK, No. 2:22-cv-1884 KJM CSK P 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 G. VALENCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. In his civil rights complaint, plaintiff raised 18 fourteen claims against seventeen defendants. On May 23, 2024, the district court ordered that 19 this case proceeds on the following claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation claims as to 20 defendants G. Valencia, L. Cantu and T. Cooper (claims one, two and ten); (2) Plaintiff’s claim 21 that defendants Weaver, Luther and Hadden confiscated and destroyed a box of plaintiff’s legal 22 materials in retaliation for plaintiff pursuing litigation as evidenced by the materials in the box 23 that were clearly labeled (claims five, six and seven); and (3) Plaintiff’s claim that in August of 24 2020, defendants J. Cantu, Vega, Sgt. T. Coker, and Lt. J. Charon1 violated plaintiff’s rights by 25 orchestrating the placement of a violent and unstable Level IV inmate into plaintiff’s cell, failing 26 to protect plaintiff from harm (claims three, eight, and nine). (ECF No. 20 at 3.) The district 27

28 1 Lt. J. Charon was inadvertently referred to as Lt. J. Caron. (ECF No. 20 at 3.) 1 | court dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims and subclaims with leave to amend within thirty 2 || days. (Id.) Thirty days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or 3 || otherwise responded to the district court’s order. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's remaining claims and 5 || subclaims not specifically identified above, including plaintiff's claims four, eleven, twelve, 6 | thirteen, and fourteen, as well as defendants G. McCarthy, J. Austin, Lt. Mercado, Sgt. Mohr, R. 7 || Covello, R. Diaz, and K. Allison, are dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. 8 | Civ. P. 41(b). 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 13 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 14 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 15 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 || Dated: July 1, 2024 A aA i Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 > /I/mecl1 884. fta

22 23 24 25 26 27 28