Rodriguez v. Brown, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER Adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Defendant's 19 Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims be Granted, without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/5/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
STATE LAW CLAIMS BE GRANTED,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF Nos. 19, 27.)

16
17

Joseph D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

19

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 1, 2016, the

the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations that Defendant Sherman’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) be granted and

22

that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice (ECF No. 27). This was served

23

on Plaintiff that same day and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within

24

twenty days. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file any objections.

25
26
27
28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 1, 2016 (ECF No. 27), are
adopted in full;
1. Defendant Sherman’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED;
1

1

2. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed from this case without prejudice; and

2

3. This case will proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Sherman for

3

unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth

4

Amendment.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 5, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2