James White v. Pazin et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 30 , 42 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/16/17: This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES E. WHITE,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00917-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN
PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’
12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

MARK N. PAZIN, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 30, 42)
Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff James E. White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

On October 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

18

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 12(b)(6) be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 42.) The Findings and

20

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to file any objections within

21

thirty (30) days. (Id., p. 22.) On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety (90) day

22

extension of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 44.) On

23

November 10, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff’s

24

motion for extension of time, and provided Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days to file

25

objections. (ECF No. 46.) The deadline has expired, and no objections have been filed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

27

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

28

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 19, 2016, are adopted IN FULL;

3

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 23, 2015, is

4

GRANTED IN PART as follows:

5

a.

6

Plaintiff’s claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED,
without leave to amend;

7

b.

8

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED, as moot, without leave to
amend;

9

c.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Blake, Cavallero, Scott, Thoreson, and

10

Blodgett in their official capacities, and the Merced County Sheriff’s Department,

11

are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, and the County of Merced is

12

SUBSTITUTED as a defendant;

13

d.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Blake, Cavallero, Scott, Thoreson, and

14

Blodgett in their individual capacities are DISMISSED on the grounds that they

15

are entitled to qualified immunity;

16

3.

This case will proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against the County of Merced for the violation

17

of the First and Fourteenth Amendment based on the policy at Merced County Jail of

18

denying visitations with minors under age 12 to pretrial detainees; and

19
20

4.

This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with
this order.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2