Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edward Paul Cragg, a prisoner housed at Taft Community Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed at the facility (Doc. 1). Because the complaint was filed by a prisoner, the magistrate judge screened it and found that Cragg stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Long, Sherman, and Topote (Doc. 9 at 17-27). The magistrate judge found that Cragg did not state claims under the Fourteenth Amendment related to conditions of confinement, including the clothing provided, medical care, and dental care (Id. at 6-17).
In response to the screening order, Cragg indicated that he was willing to proceed on the cognizable claims against Long, Sherman, and Topote (Doc. 10 at 1). Following receipt of that response, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the action proceed on the cognizable claims and that all other claims be dismissed (Doc. 12). The court served the Findings and Recommendations on Cragg and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. The court also advised him that failure to file timely objections "may result in the waiver of the 'right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings' on appeal," quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). Cragg did not file objections, and the time to do so expired.
The Court’s Holding
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the court concluded that the Findings and Recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The court therefore ordered that the Findings and Recommendations issued on September 22, 2026 (Doc. 12) be adopted in full.
The court ordered that the action proceed on Cragg's First Amendment retaliation claims against defendant Long (Claims III and IV), defendant Sherman (Claims III and IV), and defendant Topote (Claim III). All other claims raised in the complaint were dismissed. The court further ordered that defendants Anthony Garcia, S. Lacy, Curtis Logan, T. Morgan, J. Sanchez, A. Slade, and Amy Wilson be dismissed as defendants, and directed the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to terminate the identified individuals as defendants.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations in full after conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
- Cragg's First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Long, Sherman, and Topote will proceed, specifically Claims III and IV against Long and Sherman, and Claim III against Topote.
- All other claims in the complaint, including the Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims related to clothing, medical care, and dental care, were dismissed.
- Seven defendants—Anthony Garcia, S. Lacy, Curtis Logan, T. Morgan, J. Sanchez, A. Slade, and Amy Wilson—were dismissed from the action, and the clerk was directed to update the docket accordingly.
- Cragg did not file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within the 14-day period, potentially waiving his right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings on appeal under Wilkerson v. Wheeler.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the standard process for screening prisoner civil rights complaints, where a magistrate judge reviews the complaint to identify cognizable claims and recommends dismissal of claims that fail to state a basis for relief. The district court's adoption of the findings and recommendations after de novo review demonstrates the procedural framework for handling such cases when the plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge's recommendations.
The case also highlights the consequences of failing to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. By not objecting within the specified 14-day period, Cragg may have waived his right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings on appeal, as noted in the court's citation to Wilkerson v. Wheeler. This serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in federal litigation.