Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00419-5

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2023-04-07

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:39:00

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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
MICHAEL JACE, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
MARGARET LIRONES, et al., 
Defendants. 
Case No.: 1:22-cv-00419-AWI-CDB (PC) 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 
 
(Doc. 20) 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Michael Jace is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 
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 March 16, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 
recommending this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 
Defendant Peterson, that his remaining claims be dismissed, and that Defendants Clark and 
Lirones be dismissed from the action. (See Doc. 20.) Plaintiff was afforded 14 days within which 
to file objections. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 5, 2023. (Doc. 21.) 
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 
analysis. 

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 
 
 
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 16, 2023 (Doc. 20) are 
ADOPTED IN FULL; 
2. Defendants Ken Clark and Margaret Lirones are DISMISSED from this action; 
3. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim 
against Defendant Peterson; and 
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: April 7, 2023 
 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight