Dixon v. Allison et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/27/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RICK DIXON,

No. 1:10-cv-02365-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

12
13

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

14

Defendant.

(Doc. Nos. 36, 46)

15
16

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.
23

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.
28 /////

1

1

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.
4

Accordingly,

5

1.

The findings and recommendations, filed August 3, 2017, are adopted in full and

6

defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 36) is granted in part and denied in part

7

as follows;

8

2.

claims as barred by the statute of limitations is granted;

9
10

3.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the official capacity claims for monetary damages
is granted;

11
12

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the religious expression and access to courts

4.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the unconstitutional conditions of confinement

13

claim for denial of outdoor exercise on the ground that defendant is entitled to

14

qualified immunity is denied without prejudice to that issue being raised at a later

15

stage in these proceedings;

16

5.

capacity claims for monetary damages are dismissed;

17
18

Defendant’s religious expression claim, access to courts claim, and official

6.

This action shall proceed only against defendant in her individual capacity with

19

respect to plaintiff’s unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim for denial

20

of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

21

7.

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.

22

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated:

September 27, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2