Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. MOLINA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01554 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 15]

Plaintiff Charles T. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 13, 2013, in Fresno County Superior 

Court. On October 2, 2014, the case was removed to this Court. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff names Correctional Officer A. Molina, Physician Assistant R. Wilson, Sergeant 

Hosman, Assistant Warden J. Buckley, and R. Pimentel as Defendants. On August 3, 2015, the 

Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and determined that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim 

of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant Molina. The Magistrate 

Judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state any other claim against any other Defendant. 

Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his 

willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the order and stated his intention to stand on the initial complaint. 

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 11/19/15 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

On October 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended the case proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against Defendants Molina and 

Hosman, and that Defendants Wilson, Buckley, and Pimentel and all remaining claims be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend. The Findings and Recommendations were served on all 

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On 

November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections. Defendants did not file a reply to the objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 5, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. The case will PROCEED on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against Defendants Molina 

and Hosman; Defendants Wilson, Buckley, and Pimentel and all remaining claims are

DISMISSED without leave to amend; 

3. Defendants Molina and Hosman are DIRECTED to file an answer within thirty (30) days 

of the date of service of this order; and

4. The action is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2