(PC)Martinez v. Macomber, et al.

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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLOS MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. MACOMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:26-cv-0984 JLT SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS,
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT
TO UPDATE THE DOCKET
(Doc. 16)
Carlos Martinez asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights and seeks to hold the
defendants liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Doc. 13.) The magistrate judge
screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that he stated a cognizable claim for deliberate
indifference against Defendant V. Yang. (Doc. 14 at 8-9.) However, the magistrate judge found
Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims against other named defendants, including his
claims related to retaliation, equal protection/ discrimination, clothing and laundry services,
prison trust account access, and the inmate grievance process. (Id. at 9-13.) In response to the
Screening Order, Plaintiff filed a notice to proceed on the claim of deliberate indifference against
Defendant V. Yang, although he also indicated that he preserved his right to appeal the findings.
(Doc. 15 at 1-2.)
On September 10, 2026, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations,
referencing the findings of the Screening Order and recommending all claims except deliberate
Case 1:26-cv-00984-JLT-SAB Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

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
indifference against Defendant Yang be dismissed. (Doc. 16.) The Court also informed Plaintiff
that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right
to challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v.
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).)
Plaintiff filed objections, again indicating that he “wants the record [to] reflect[] his
intention to appeal the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations with this case is over,
either, against or in favor of Plaintiff.” (Doc. 17 at 1.) Plaintiff indicates that he wants “his
objections in general [to] be recorded on the record.” (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff does not address the specific findings of the magistrate judge in the Screening
Order or the legal bases for the findings. Without such specificity, Plaintiff fails to raise proper
objections to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring any objections to magistrate
judges' findings and recommendations to be “specific”); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection … has the same effects as would
a failure to object”); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding general
objections do not preserve arguments for appellate review and stating that “[a] district judge
should not have to guess what arguments an objecting party depends on …”); see also
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting the court “will not manufacture
arguments” for parties).
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire matter—including the Screening Order and Plaintiff’s
responses— the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 10, 2026 (Doc. 16) are
ADOPTED in full.
2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference
against Defendant V. Yang.
3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to
state a cognizable claim for relief.
Case 1:26-cv-00984-JLT-SAB Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

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
3
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate J. Mathur, M.
Bansal, E. Lunsford, B. K. Roao, J. Meri, R. Tolmachoff, P. Williams, and C.
Adams as defendants.
5. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026_
Case 1:26-cv-00984-JLT-SAB Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3