Aaron v. Cano et al

Filing 39

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Order For Action To Proceed On October 21, 2009 Amended Complaint Against Defendants I. Bueno, L. Cano, And S. Cano For Retaliation (Doc. 32 ); signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/10/2010. (Fahrney, E)

(PC) Aaron v. Cano et al

Doc. 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff George Aaron Jr., ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 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 July 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice to the Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations on August 20, 2010. In his objection, Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered "actual injury" since he was "relegated to settle the case for an unsatisfactory amount." The Plaintiff still does not present facts which would demonstrate that he has a cognizable access to 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) S. CANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ____________________________________) GEORGE AARON, JR.,

CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-00664-AWI-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER FOR ACTION TO PROCEED ON OCTOBER 21, 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS I. BUENO, L. CANO, AND S. CANO FOR RETALIATION (Doc. 32)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

courts claim. Plaintiff's voluntary decision to settle the case does not demonstrate that he was denied access to the courts. Moreover, Plaintiff's assertion that if circumstances were different, Plaintiff could have been more successful in litigating his claim or could have obtained a more satisfactory settlement is speculative and cannot establish actual injury. See Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990, 995-96 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 28, 2010, is adopted in full. The action shall proceed on Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on October 21, 2009; against Defendants I. Bueno, L. Cano and S. Cano for retaliation against Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights; and 3. Plaintiff's access to courts claims and Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 December 10, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2