Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00989-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON D. SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEDBETTER,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-0989 JLT CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIM 

THREE IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

(Doc. 15)

Aaron D. Seymour seeks to hold the defendant liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment. (See Doc. 

13 at 3-6.) However, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with 

the Government Tort Claim Act, as required for his third claim for relief: “slander of character

[and] moral debilitation” and/or defamation. (Id. at 6-8.) 

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he did “not wish to file an amended 

complaint [and] would like to proceed only on the First Amendment retaliation [and] Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant Ledbetter.” (Doc. 14 at 1.) Therefore, the 

magistrate judge recommended the action proceed on the cognizable claims, and the claim arising 

under state law be dismissed. (Doc. 15)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff on June 21, 2023, and 

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 16 Filed 07/18/23 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

contained a notice that any objections were due within fourteen days of the date of service. (Doc. 

15 at 2.) The Court advised him that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file 

objections, and the time to do so has expired.

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

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 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 June 1, 2023 (Doc. 15) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment (claim one) and failure to protect under the Eighth 

Amendment (claim two).

3. The remaining claim (claim three) is DISMISSED.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 16 Filed 07/18/23 Page 2 of 2