1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01249 JLT CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
14 OFFICER ARIAS, et al., (Doc. 11)
15 Defendants.
16
17
18 The magistrate judge recommended this action proceed on plaintiff’s Fourteenth
19 Amendment due process violation against Defendant Aguirre and First Amendment retaliation
20 claims against Defendants Arias, Peterson, and Reynosa, that W. Costello and Does 1 through 10
21 be dismissed, and that any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed.
22 (Doc. 11.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff, warned him that
23 objections were due within 14 days, and advised that “failure to file objections within the
24 specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 2-3, citing Wilkerson v.
25 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) To date, no objections have been filed.
26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this
27 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and
Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
1 Thus, the Court ORDERS:
2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 2, 2026 (Doc. 11) are
3 ADOPTED in full.
4 2. This action PROCEEDS on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process violation
5 against Defendant Aguirre and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants
6 Arias, Peterson, and Reynosa.
7 3. Defendants W. Costello and Doe | through 10 are DISMISSED from the action
8 without prejudice.
9 4. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint are DISMISSED.
10 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
1]
D IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 | Dated: _ April 24, 2026 Cerin | Tower
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.