Ricks v. Davis, 1:18-cv-01022-DAD-SKO. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190628976
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 April 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 April 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 April 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff's retaliation claim and conditions of confinement claims against defendant C. Davis and that all other claims be dismissed. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned 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,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's claims against defendant C. Davis for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and his claims based on his conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All other claims are dismissed; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
