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)

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