Ahmed v. Martel, et al.
Filing
33
ORDER adopting Findings and Recommendations to grant 17 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/22/2015. (Amended Complaint due by 11/24/2015). (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
SAIYEZ AHMED,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
v.
M. MARTEL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:13-cv-00941-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 17)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
19 District Court for the Eastern District of California.
20
On August 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued revised Findings and
21 Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (ECF
22 No. 29.) Defendants have filed objections. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff was granted leave to
23 file objections on or before October 21, 2015. That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff
24 has not filed his objections.
25
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
26 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
27 Court finds the revised findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
28 and by proper analysis.
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the revised findings and recommendations, filed on
2
August 26, 2015 (ECF No. 29), in full;
3
4
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED;
5
3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the
date of this order.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
October 22, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?