Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01613/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01613-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. MEDINA, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 14)

Plaintiff Kareem Howell is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

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

On November 21, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that he had stated cognizable claims against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro 

for retaliation in violation of his First Amendment right and deliberate indifference in violation of 

his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 8.) In that screening order, the magistrate judge

directed plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in that screening order. (Id. at 

6.) On January 14, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the 

claims found by the screening order to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 13.)

Case 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 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

Accordingly, on January 17, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s retaliation and deliberate 

indifference claims against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro only and that the 

remaining claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within 

fourteen days. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The January 17, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in 

full;

2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s retaliation and failure to protect 

claims brought against defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro; and

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2