Felton v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING 61 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER Granting in Part Defendant Lopez's 38 Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, or Based on Qualified Immunity, with Leave to Amend; ORDER Denying Defenda nt Lopez's Motion to Strike Exhibits from Original Complaint; ORDER for Clerk to File First Amended Complaint Lodged on February 17, 2015; ORDER for Defendants Lopez and Harrison to File Answer to First Amended Complaint within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/05/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

KELVIN FELTON,

9
10
11
12

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 61.)

vs.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT LOPEZ’S MOTION TO
DISMISS SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, OR
BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY,
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 38.)

J. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LOPEZ’S
MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBITS FROM
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

16
17

ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON
FEBRUARY 17, 2015
(Doc. 65.)

18
19

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS LOPEZ AND
HARRISON TO FILE ANSWER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

20
21
22

23

Kelvin Felton (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

24

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

26

On January 28, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

27

Defendant Lopez’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint for failure to state a

28

claim, or based on qualified immunity, be granted in part with leave to amend; and that
1

1

defendant Lopez’s motion to strike be denied.

2

opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date,

3

no objections have been filed. However, on February 17, 2015, Plaintiff lodged a proposed

4

First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 65.)

(Doc. 61.)

The parties were granted an

5

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

6

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

7

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

8

analysis.

9
10

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1.

11
12

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January
28, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2.

Defendant Lopez’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint for

13

failure to state a claim, or based on qualified immunity, filed on May 2, 2014, is

14

GRANTED IN PART, with leave to file a First Amended Complaint combining

15

the claims in the original Complaint and the Supplemental Complaint;

16

3.

17
18

on May 2, 2014, is DENIED;
4.

19
20

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the First Amended Complaint lodged
on February 17, 2015 (Doc. No. 65);

5.

21
22

Defendant Lopez’s motion to strike exhibits from the original Complaint, filed

Defendants Harrison and Lopez shall file an Answer to the First Amended
Complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this order; and

6.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2