(PC) Porter v. Hamman

Opinion

KEVIN LAMAR PORTER, No. 1:23-cv-01468 JLT SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING v. CERTAIN CLAIMS VIVIAN HAMMAN, (Doc. 13) Defendant. Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant liable for violations of his rights arising under federal and state law. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and determined Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation and violating California’s Bane Act. (Doc. 8 at 3-5.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s other claims were not cognizable. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff notified the Court that “it is his decision and intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable….” (Doc. 11 at 2.) After receiving this notice, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only upon Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and a violation of the Bane Act. (Doc. 13.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 2.) The Court advised him the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 13, 2023 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiffs claims for retaliation and violation of the Bane Act against Defendant Hamman. 3. All other claims are DISMISSED. 4. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. b IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 8, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE