Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01364/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01364-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William J. Gradford
Plaintiff
Guiltron
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUILTRON,

Defendant.

No. 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 22)

Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 February 12, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, finding that plaintiff had stated a cognizable 

claim against defendant Guiltron for retaliation in violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, 

but that he had failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 22.) In addition, the 

magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had already been given an opportunity to amend his 

original complaint, with ample guidance from the court, and that the deficiencies in his first 

amended complaint are not capable of being cured by amendment. (Id. at 11.) Thus, the pending 

findings and recommendations recommend that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s claim 

Case 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA Document 25 Filed 04/14/20 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

against defendant Guiltron for retaliation, and that plaintiff’s other claims be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 11–12.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were due within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) 

On February 21, 2020, plaintiff notified the court that he has no objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 23.)

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

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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s retaliation claim brought against 

defendant Guiltron; 

3. All other claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim 

for relief; and

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

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA Document 25 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2