McDaniel v. Chavez et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58 , 67 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/6/17: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT MCDANIEL,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF NOS. 58 & 67)
FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

21 DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Robert McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that

18

he was deprived of witnesses and evidence with regard to disciplinary proceedings that took

19

place in 2008. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28

20

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

21

On March 28, 2017, defendant Loyd filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 58). On May

22

2, 2017, defendants Chavez and Davis filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 61).

23

On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 65). On

24

June 12, 2017, defendants Loyd, Chavez, and Davis filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

25

(ECF No. 65).

26

On July 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

27

recommendations, recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in

28

part. (ECF No. 67). Specifically, Judge Grosjean recommended that the motion to dismiss be
1

1

granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, with the remainder of the motion

2

to dismiss being denied (without prejudice to Defendants asserting the defense of qualified

3

immunity at a later stage in the proceeding). (Id. at 8).

4
5

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations within thirty days. No objections were filed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

7

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

8

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

11

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 13, 2017,

12

are ADOPTED in full;

13

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

14

3. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive

15

relief;

16

4. Save and except as noted above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED, without

17

prejudice to Defendants asserting the defense of qualified immunity at a later stage

18

in the proceeding;

19

5. Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to file

20
21

their answer(s); and
6. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 6, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2