Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00500-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIOVANNI MCDOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00500 JLT SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THE RETALIATION CLAIM

(Doc. 17)

Giovanni McDowell, a state prisoner, asserts the defendants are liable for violations of his 

civil rights while he was incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center. (See generally Doc. 13.) 

The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 

and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his safety against 

Defendants Smith, Storey, Davis, and Cobian. (Doc. 17 at 3-4.) However, the magistrate judge 

found Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim for retaliation. (Id. at 4-5.) The magistrate judge 

determined further leave to amend would be futile, because the Court previously provided 

Plaintiff with the applicable legal standards, and he failed to cure the deficiencies related to his 

retaliation claim. (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed 

only on the deliberate indifference to safety claim and the retaliation claim be dismissed. (Id.) 

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

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 17 at 6.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure 

Case 1:24-cv-00500-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/04/24 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

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.” (Id., 

quoting 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. 

According 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 August 7, 2024 (Doc. 17) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED.

3. This action SHALL proceed only as to Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference 

to safety against Defendants Smith, Storey, Davis, and Cobian.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00500-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 2