Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00843-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL L. SNOWDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TATE; M. TOSCANO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00843-AWI-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Daniel L. Snowden is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under 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 January 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that 

Plaintiff states cognizable claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs but fails to state a cognizable due process claim. (Doc. 10.) The magistrate judge granted 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court that he wishes to proceed only on 

his retaliation and deliberate indifference claims. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff filed a motion 

requesting that the court “remove the ‘due process violation claim’” and allow him to proceed on 

the “deliberate indifference and retaliation” claims. (Doc. 11.)

Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the 

claims in this action, except for Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to 

Case 1:19-cv-00843-AWI-CDB Document 17 Filed 03/04/20 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

serious medical needs in violation of the First and Eighth amendments. (Doc. 13.) The findings 

and recommendations provided Plaintiff 14 days to file objections thereto. (Id.) More than the 

allowed time has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any 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 file, the Court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2020 (Doc. 13) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. The claims in this action are DISMISSED, except for Plaintiff’s claims of 

retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs;

3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00843-AWI-CDB Document 17 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2