Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00266-2/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.

A. CAMARGO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00266-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

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

On August 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that he had stated cognizable claims for retaliation in his Claim I against defendants A. 

Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. Saucedo. (Doc. No. 9.) The 

magistrate judge also found that the complaint failed to state any other cognizable claim against 

any other defendant. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint, 

notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the 

screening order, or stand on complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants. (Id. at 12.) 

The court directed plaintiff to file his response within twenty-one days and indicated that failure 

to comply would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only on the claims found 

Case 1:19-cv-00266-DAD-SKO Document 13 Filed 01/17/20 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

cognizable by the court. (Id. at 8–9.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within twentyone days or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 

Consequently, on October 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed solely on plaintiff’s retaliation claims 

brought against defendants A. Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. 

Saucedo. (Doc. No. 10.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims and 

defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were 

served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so 

has now passed. 

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

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

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims for retaliation in Claim I against 

defendants A. Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. 

Saucedo;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state 

cognizable claims for relief; and 

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

consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00266-DAD-SKO Document 13 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2