(PC) Osuna v. Hernandez

Aug 10, 2026
1:26-cv-01144

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Jamie Osuna is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on February 9, 2026. Doc. 1. Plaintiff alleged Defendant Hernandez disclosed non-public medical and mental health information in a public comment to a YouTube video, and that the remaining Defendants failed to grant his grievances related to Defendant Hernandez’s conduct. Id. at 3. 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 April 28, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against Defendant Hernandez and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. Doc. 10. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days after service. Id. at 8. Plaintiff filed timely objections on May 7, 2026. Doc. 12.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After carefully reviewing the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff acknowledges that his claims against the remaining defendants cannot proceed on a “grievance denial” theory. See Doc. 12 at 1. But he argues that his claims against them should nonetheless be allowed to proceed, based essentially on the theory that they failed to adequately respond to and address Defendant Hernandez’s posting of Plaintiff’s non-public information. See Doc. 12.

But, as the findings and recommendations found, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hernandez posted the information in Defendant Hernandez’s YouTube video, and not in a forum controlled by the other defendants or the prison. Plaintiff does not allege that the other defendants disseminated any of Plaintiff’s confidential information, were involved in any way with Defendant Hernandez’s comments, or had any control over Defendant Hernandez’s posting. For the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim as to any of the remaining defendants, and his objections do not identify a cognizable claim that could be stated as to those defendants through further amendment.

Accordingly:

  1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 28, 2026, Doc. 10, are adopted in full;
  2. Plaintiff’s action shall proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against Defendant Hernandez;
  3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
  4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE