(PC) Jaramillo v. Burns

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUDIE JARAMILLO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-0666 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE JOSEPH BURNES, et al., DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 18) 17 Rudie Jaramillo seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for Eighth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, Garcia, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz. (Doc. 18 at 4-10.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against J. Contreras and R. Villanueva-Garcia. (Id. at 8, 9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss Contreras and Villanueva-Garcia as defendants and the action proceed on the cognizable claims. (Id. at 10.)

25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 10.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id. at 11, 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.

2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 8, 2024 (Doc. 18) are 6 ADOPTED in full.

7 2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force 8 and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, 9 Garcia, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz.

10 3. Defendants J. Contreras and R. Villanueva-Garcia are DISMISSED from this action.

11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket.

12 5. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: _ December 12, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE