Adler v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/16/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

BRENT ADLER,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 1:11-cv-01915-LJO-MJS
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

v.
FERNANDO GONZALES, et al.,

16

(ECF No. 37)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Brent Adler (“Plaintiff”), a former California state prisoner, filed this civil rights

19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 17, 2011. The matter was referred to a United
20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21

On May 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations,

22 recommending dismissal of certain of Plaintiff’s claims and defendants. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff
23 has not filed any objections.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28

1

1

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

2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
3 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
4 analysis.
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 30, 2013, are adopted in full;

7

2.

This action for damages proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against

8

Defendants Negrete, Zanchi, Carrasco, Holland, Holmstrom, Gonzalez,

9

Steadman, Bryant, Schuyler, Lundy, Stainer, Doe #1, Doe #2, Doe #4, Doe #5,

10

and Doe #6 for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment and against

11

Defendants Gonzales, Holland, Carrasco, Negrete, Steadman, Zanchi, Bryant,

12

Lundy, Schuyler, Holmstrom, Doe #1, Doe #2, Doe #4, Doe #5, and Doe #6 for

13

violating Plaintiff’s rights under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

14

Act;

15

3.

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants

16

Gonzalez, Holland, Carrasco, Negrete, Steadman, Zanchi, Bryant, Lundy,

17

Schuyler, Holmstrom, and Does #1-6, be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to

18

state a claim under § 1983;

19

4.

state a claim; and

20
21

5.

24
25

Defendants Does #3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 be dismissed from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them.

22
23

Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 16, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7.

26
27

8.
9.
10.

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

28

2