S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
(1) The Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Berman, Avila, Barragan, Woods and Torres (Dkt. No. 82) is DENIED without prejudice;
(2) The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Berman, Avila, Barragan and Woods (Dkt. No. 58) is GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Woods, Barragan, Barela-Johnson, Sullivan, Butler, Heckenberg-Garner, Sumpter, Webb, Carvajales, "Jerry," "Davis," "K.B.," "L.C.," Jane Doe No. 1, "A.I.," "M.M.," "N.G.," and Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff's First and Fourth Claims, his state law claims, and his official capacity claims against the CTC and COC members are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and
(4) Plaintiff's Second, Third and Fifth Claims ARE DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he must file a
Plaintiff may not serve, or cause to be served, any Third Amended Complaint that is filed personally on any named defendant absent further court order. Plaintiff may serve any Third Amended Complaint on counsel for any represented defendants who have already appeared in this matter.
Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies described in the Report and Recommendation will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order.