Baker v. Yates

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING 61 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/15/2013. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARVEY CURTIS BAKER, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS v. ECF NO. 61 JAMES A. YATES, Defendant. 16 17 On April 9, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated some 18 cognizable claims. (ECF No. 54.) The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended 19 complaint curing the deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims or to inform the Court that he 20 wishes to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the Court and consents to the 21 dismissal of the non-cognizable claims. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff informed the Court that he 22 wishes to proceed solely on the claims found to be cognizable in the Court’s screening order. 23 (ECF No. 59.) On June 5, 2013, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a Findings and 24 Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claims be dismissed from this 25 action, which include Plaintiff’s state law claims, claims for equitable relief and claims against 26 Defendants James A. Yates. (ECF No. 61.) 27 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that 28 any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Neither party has filed objections to the 1 1 Findings and Recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 3 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 4 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 5, 2013 are ADOPTED IN FULL (ECF No. 61); 7 2. 8 Plaintiff’s state law claims, claims for equitable relief and claims against Defendant James A. Yates are DISMISSED; and 9 3. 10 This action shall proceed solely against Defendant Unidentified Correctional 11 Officer Jane Doe #1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights 12 under the Eighth Amendment. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 16 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill July 15, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 DEAC_Signature-END: 66h44d 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?