Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00655-3/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

D’ANNUNZIO ROMAN GAVIOLA 

PATRON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEWY HUGH, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 12)

The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable due process claim against Defendants Lewy Hugh, C. Mares, G. Herara and a 

cognizable claim for retaliation against Defendant Alvarez. (Doc. 12.) However, because the 

claims were improperly joined pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, the 

magistrate judge recommended that this action proceed on the due process claim against 

Defendants Lewy Hugh, C. Mares, G. Herara and the retaliation claim against Defendant Alvarez 

be dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling in a separate action. (Id. at 6.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 12 at 6–7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 

objections, and the time to do so has passed.

Case 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/23/24 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

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

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

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 1, 2024 (Doc. 12) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action SHALL proceed on only Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due 

process deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Lewy Hugh, C. Mares, 

and G. Herara.

3. Plaintiffs claim for retaliation against Defendant Alvarez is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as improperly joined under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 18 and 20, subject to refiling in a separate action. 

4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2 of 2