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)

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