Hollis v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/3/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

(PC) Hollis v. Gonzalez et al

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 v. 11 R. GONZALEZ, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Chauncey Hollis ("plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States (DOC. 17) CHAUNCEY HOLLIS, Plaintiff, 1:08-CV-01834-OWW-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. did not file a timely Objection to the Plaintiff and

Findings

Recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2010, are adopted in full; 2) This action proceed on Plaintiff's first amended

complaint, filed May 26, 2009, against Defendant Sweeney for violation of the Fourth Amendment; 3) Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Gonzalez for

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment are DISMISSED without prejudice; 4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hackett, Hawkins, Reed and Sampson are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5) Plaintiff's claims arising at Desert View Modified

Community Correctional Facility and at the California Institute for Men are DISMISSED without prejudice; 6) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Director of CDCR are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 7) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2