Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01449/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01449-4/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

PAUL A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 19)

Plaintiff Paul A. Turner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed against Defendant 

David Castillo for a Fourth Amendment violation for conducting the first strip search with an 

activated body camera and/or patio camera. Doc. 19. The magistrate judge further recommended 

that all other claims be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief 

may be granted. Id. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Id. at 11. On 

April 17, 2024, following an extension of time, plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations. Doc. 24.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court has conducted a de novo review of 

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 10/21/24 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

this case. 

Plaintiff’s objections fail to establish any error in the findings and recommendations. 

Plaintiff alleges in a conclusory fashion that his first amended complaint sufficiently articulated 

cognizable claims against the defendants and complied with all procedural requirements. 

However, plaintiff provides no factual allegations in support of his assertions, beyond the 

allegations in the first amended complaint already considered by the magistrate judge.

Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the 

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 14, 2024, Doc. 19, are adopted 

in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed January 25, 

2024, Doc. 18, against defendant Castillo for a Fourth Amendment violation for 

conducting the first strip search with an activated body camera and/or patio camera; 

and

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

claims upon which relief may be granted; and

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent 

with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 2