Dixon v. Allison et al
ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/27/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
(Doc. Nos. 36, 46)
Plaintiff Rick Dixon is a former inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth
18 amended complaint against defendant Allison for unconstitutional conditions of confinement for
19 denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of the right to religious
20 expression in violation of the First Amendment, and denial of access to the courts in violation of
21 the First Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 18, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 36.) On August
24 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that
25 defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted in part. (Doc. No. 46.) The parties were provided
26 thirty days in which to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date,
27 neither party has filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the
3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
The findings and recommendations, filed August 3, 2017, are adopted in full and
defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 36) is granted in part and denied in part
claims as barred by the statute of limitations is granted;
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the official capacity claims for monetary damages
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the religious expression and access to courts
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the unconstitutional conditions of confinement
claim for denial of outdoor exercise on the ground that defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity is denied without prejudice to that issue being raised at a later
stage in these proceedings;
capacity claims for monetary damages are dismissed;
Defendant’s religious expression claim, access to courts claim, and official
This action shall proceed only against defendant in her individual capacity with
respect to plaintiff’s unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim for denial
of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 27, 2017
UNITED STATES 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?