1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES A. ROGERS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 JLT SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART 13 v. AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 K. CAMPBELL, et al., (Doc. 34) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Charles A. Rogers seeks to hold Defendants liable for violations of his civil rights action 19 pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 The magistrate judge recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and 22 denied in part. (Doc. 34.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended Defendants’ motion be 23 denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claim concerning Defendant Campbell and granted 24 as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Cates and Sullivan. (Id. 25 at 7-16.) The magistrate judge advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the 26 specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 16-17, citing Wilkerson v. 27 Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Defendants filed objections on December 9, 2024. eee nee enn IE I ON IO

1 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Defendants’ objections, the Court 3 || concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper □□□□□□□□□ 4 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 25, 2024 (Doc. 34) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 8 PART. 9 3. Defendant Campbell SHALL file an answer to the operative complaint within 21 days 10 of the date of this order. 11 4. Defendants Cates and Sullivan are DISMISSED from the action. 12 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ September 30, 2025 : TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' The Court reads the Findings and Recommendations as concluding that several alleged facts circumstantially suggest retaliatory motive, including timing and the fact that Defendant Campbell withheld mail from Plaintiff 26 because the sender (not Plaintiff) was employing a service permitting blind or physically disabled persons to mail certain materials free of charge. Defendants’ objections suggest a very different way to view the allegations, namely 27 as a routine application of prison regulations regarding the provision of notice to an inmate who is having their mail withheld for legitimate reasons. However, viewing the operative complaint liberally and in the light most favorable to 28 the Plaintiff, the Court agrees that dismissal is not appropriate at this juncture. Further factual development may, however, reveal that Defendants’ position is the only reasonable way to view the facts of that claim.