Ivan Lee Matthews v. Liles et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 39 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/25/17: This matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 R. LILES, et al., 13 No. 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 39) Defendants. 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 18 recommendations, recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and 19 denied in part. (ECF No. 49.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties 20 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 21 service. (Id. at 9–10.) 22 23 24 On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (ECF No. 50.) The deadline to file objections has passed, and no other objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, but finds no basis 26 warranting rejection of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 28 record and by proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The September 5, 2017 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 49), are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 39) is granted in part and denied in part; 5 3. Plaintiff’s denial of access to courts claim is dismissed; 6 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action on the grounds of qualified immunity is 7 denied; 8 5. Defendants’ motion to strike the request for punitive damages is denied; 9 6. This action shall proceed against Defendants Liles, Sherrett, and Cable only on the 10 claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from the denial of 11 Plaintiff’s legal papers; 12 13 7. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 25, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?