Stratmon v. Tucker et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Morris for Retaliation and Interference With Incoming Mail; and ORDER Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/12/2014. Marvin Tucker, Mukhitar Sahota and E. Stokes terminated. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DAVID L STRATMON,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
1:12-cv-01837-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 14.)
vs.
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT MORRIS FOR
RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE
WITH INCOMING MAIL
M. TUCKER, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
14
15
David L. Stratmon (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
16
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
17
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 9,
18
2012. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
19
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On October 2, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending
21
that this action proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation and interference with
22
incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that all other claims
23
and defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc.
24
14.)
25
Recommendations within twenty days.
26
opposition to the Findings and Recommendations, notifying the court that he does not wish to
27
file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation
28
and interference with mail. (Doc. 15.)
Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and
On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
2
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
3
the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
4
analysis.
5
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
6
1.
7
8
The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October
2, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;
2.
This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on November
9
9, 2012, against defendant Morris (Factory Manager), for retaliation and
10
interference with incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth
11
Amendments;
12
3.
All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;
13
4.
Defendants Assistant Warden M. Tucker, Foreman M. Suhota, and Foreman E.
14
Stokes are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any
15
claims upon which relief may be granted against them;
16
5.
17
18
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
6.
19
20
Plaintiff’s claim concerning the loss of his prison job is DISMISSED for failure
The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Tucker, Suhota,
and Stokes from this action on the Court's docket; and
7.
21
This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including service of process.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
November 12, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?