Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WOODS v. HAMKAR, 2:12-cv-00562 MCE CKD (P). (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150929794 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein (ECF No. 103), which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were
More

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein (ECF No. 103), which were served on all parties and which contained notice 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 presumes that the magistrate judge's findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 14, 2015 (ECF No. 103) are ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt, Toche, and Beard's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 82) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically:

a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's contract claims against Defendants Tharratt, Toche, and Beard;

b. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and Nangalama.

3. Defendant Kelso's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The only inaccuracy in the Findings and Recommendations is the statement that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. See ECF No. 103 at 1. Contrary to that statement, the docket and Plaintiff's opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 91) indicate that Plaintiff has counsel.
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