JONES v. McELROY, 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150306727
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2015
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 January 30, 2015, 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 recommend
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 January 30, 2015, 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 recommenda..
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 January 30, 2015, 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. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 30, 2015, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is granted and denied in part as follows:
a. Granted as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Jochim;
b. Granted as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Virga;
c. Otherwise denied; and
d. Defendant Virga is dismissed from this action with prejudice.
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is denied as follows:
a. Denied on the merits as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Jochim, Lobato, Sharp, and Sullivan; and
b. Denied as moot as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Jochim and Eighth Amendment claim against Virga.
Source: Leagle
