McDaniel v. Chavez et al
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58 , 67 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/6/17: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
(ECF NOS. 58 & 67)
FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,
21 DAY DEADLINE
Robert McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that
he was deprived of witnesses and evidence with regard to disciplinary proceedings that took
place in 2008. 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 March 28, 2017, defendant Loyd filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 58). On May
2, 2017, defendants Chavez and Davis filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 61).
On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 65). On
June 12, 2017, defendants Loyd, Chavez, and Davis filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
(ECF No. 65).
On July 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and
recommendations, recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in
part. (ECF No. 67). Specifically, Judge Grosjean recommended that the motion to dismiss be
granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, with the remainder of the motion
to dismiss being denied (without prejudice to Defendants asserting the defense of qualified
immunity at a later stage in the proceeding). (Id. at 8).
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations within thirty days. No objections were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 13, 2017,
are ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive
4. Save and except as noted above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED, without
prejudice to Defendants asserting the defense of qualified immunity at a later stage
in the proceeding;
5. Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to file
their answer(s); and
6. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
September 6, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?