Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01410/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01410-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARQUISE LOUIS DRUMWRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. HUCKLEBERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01410 JLT SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT

HUCKLEBERRY

(Doc. 14)

Marquise Louis Drumwright seeks to hold Sergeant Huckleberry and Correctional Officer 

Gomez liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate 

judge screened the allegations of the complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found 

Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against Gomez for failure to protect, excessive force, and 

retaliation. However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a claim against 

Defendant Huckleberry and the remaining claims were not cognizable. (Doc. 11.) In response to 

the Screening Order, Plaintiff filed notice that he did not wish to file an amended complaint, and 

was willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. 12.) 

The magistrate judge recommended C. Huckleberry be dismissed from this action, and 

that the action proceed on the identified claims against Gomez. (Doc. 14.) The magistrate judge

also recommended the remaining claims be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The Court served the Findings 

and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. 

Case 1:22-cv-01410-JLT-SKO Document 15 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(Id.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections have 

been filed, and the time to do so has expired. 

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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 

be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 25, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Defendant C. Huckleberry is DISMISSED from this action. 

3. This action PROCEEDS only on the claims the following claims against 

Defendant Gomez: Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim (claim one), Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim (claim two), and the First Amendment 

retaliation claim (claim three).

4. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-01410-JLT-SKO Document 15 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2