Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al

Filing 91

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 84 Recommending Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 62 be Granted in Part and Denied in Part, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/11/14. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LUIZ VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:10-cv-00858-LJO-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART (ECF Nos. 62, 84) 15 16 _____________________________________/ Plaintiff Luiz Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. This action is 18 proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on February 29, 2012, against 1) 19 Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Biter, Soto, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, 20 21 Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Grissom, Speidell, Davis, and Foster for violation of the Free 22 Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment; 2) Defendant Garza for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and 3) 24 Defendants Harrington, Biter, Grissom, Soto, Da Veiga, Phillips, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, 25 Wegman, Alic, Freir, and Rankin for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the 26 27 28 Eighth Amendment (ECF Nos. 23 & 27.) 1 Pending before the Court is Defendant Da Viega’s, Phillips’ Betzinger’s, Gregory’s, 2 Garza’s Speidell’s, Ozaeta’s, Wegman’s, Biter’s, Alec’s and Rankin’s Motion to Dismiss, filed 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 29, 2013. (ECF No. 62.) On May 4 12, 2014, the Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending granting Defendants’ 5 6 motion in part and denying in part. (ECF No. 62.) Neither party filed any objections. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 7 8 9 10 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, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the findings and 11 recommendations, filed on May 12, 2014, in full. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 11, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?