Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

REAL v. WALKER, 2:09-cv-3273 GEB KJN P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120402787 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., 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 March 2, 2012, 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
More

ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., 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 March 2, 2012, 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. Defendants have 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 March 2, 2012 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29), is granted in part;

3. Defendants Tilton, Baughman, Hemenway, Sims, Virga, Till, Hill, and Parker are dismissed from this action;

4. This action shall proceed against defendants Ramos, Stewart, Ventimiglia, Parilla, Pool, Grannis, Walker, Fisher, Kisser, and Williams;

5. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to file and serve, within thirty days after the adoption of these findings and recommendations, a Second Amended Complaint limited to the claims and defendants identified herein; and

6. Failure of plaintiff to timely file and serve a Second Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this action.

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