Hollis v. York et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/09/2012. Holder, Margaret Mims and Russell York, Doe terminated from Action.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MICHAEL EUGENE HOLLIS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00463-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

v.
RUSSELL YORK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(ECF No. 51)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Michael Eugene Hollis (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

17

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of

18

civil rights by federal actors. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On October 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

21

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

22

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On November 7, 2011, plaintiff

23

filed an Objection.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

25

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

26

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

27

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

28

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 4, 2011, is adopted in full;
1

1

2.

This action shall proceed on the Third Amended Complaint, filed September 26,

2

2011, against Defendants Dawson and Calvert for deliberate indifference to

3

conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

4

3.

Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the court claim, remaining Eighth and

5

Fourteenth Amendment claims, official capacity claims, and claim for injunctive

6

relief are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983;

7

4.

8
9

Defendants Holder, Mims, York, and Doe are dismissed, with prejudice, based upon
Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them; and

5.

This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
0m8i78

May 9, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2