Denegal v. Brazelton et al
Filing
25
ORDER Adopting 20 Findings and Recommendations, Grantin in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/16. J. D. Lozano, K. D. Geringer and J. Knight terminated. (Gonzalez, R)
1
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEITH DARNELL DENEGAL,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:14-cv-01410-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,
v.
P.D. BRAZELTON et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 11, 20)
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff Keith Darnell Denegal is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings
23
and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted as to
24
defendants Knight, Lozano and Geringer and denied as to defendant Brazelton and that plaintiff’s
25
claim for injunctive relief be dismissed as moot. Those findings and recommendations were
26
served on the parties and contained a notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days.
27
(Doc. No. 20.) Thereafter, plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an objection
28
to the findings and recommendations was granted. (Doc. No. 23.) Nonetheless, plaintiff has not
1
1
filed objections within the extended period of time, which has long since expired. Defendants
2
also have not filed objections.
3
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of
4
this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and
5
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court’s analysis with
6
respect to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief remains unchanged by his subsequent transfer to
7
Salinas Valley State Prison (see Doc. No. 21).
8
Accordingly,
9
1. The September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations are adopted in full;
10
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to defendants Knight,
11
Lozano, and Geringer is GRANTED;
12
3. Defendants Knight, Lozano, and Geringer are DISMISSED from the action;
13
4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief as to defendant
14
Brazelton is DENIED; and
15
5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as MOOT.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
January 8, 2016
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?