Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00674/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00674-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arvie B. Carroll
Plaintiff
A. Williams
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

ARVIE B. CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00674-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 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 October 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

found that plaintiff had stated cognizable claims against defendant A. Williams for retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 9.) 

Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint or notify the court of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Id. at 

11.) On October 18, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order. (Doc. No. 10.) 

Consequently, on October 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant 

Case 1:19-cv-00674-DAD-GSA Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 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

A. Williams for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other claims be 

dismissed. (Doc. No. 11.) 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. at 2.) 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 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant A. Williams for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

3. All other claims 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-00674-DAD-GSA Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2