Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

REECE v. SISTO, 2:10-cv-0203-JAM-EFB P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141118919 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 14, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to
More

ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 14, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 14, 2014, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is granted in that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed with leave to amend, and that claims based on conditions existing before January 2006 are dismissed without leave to amend, as barred by the statute of limitations;

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in his Eighth Amendment claim, within thirty days of the filing date of this order; and

4. If plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint and instead, to proceed solely on his Fourteenth Amendment claim, then defendants are required to file an answer within 45 days of the filing date of this order.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer