Galicia v. Marsh et al

Filing 62

ORDER adopting FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 59 ; granting Defendants Marsh and Weatherford's MOTION to DISMISS 28 , 31 ; dismissing due process claims against Defendants Marsh and Weatherford, without prejudice and denying MOTION for LEAVE to AMEND as moot 32 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GALICIA, 12 No. 1:16-cv-00011-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. MARSH et al., 17 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS MARSH AND WEATHERFORD’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING DUE PROCESS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MARSH AND WEATHERFORD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS MOOT 18 (Doc. Nos. 28, 31, 32, 59) 15 16 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Jose Galicia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On May 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 25 recommending that motions to dismiss brought on behalf of defendants Marsh and Weatherford 26 (Doc. Nos. 28, 31) be granted, and the claims against them be dismissed, without prejudice. 27 (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and recommendations further recommended that plaintiff’s motion 28 for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 32) be denied. (Id.) The findings and 1 1 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed 2 within thirty days. (Id.) The time to file objections has passed, and no objections to the pending 3 findings and recommendations have been filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 6 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The May 8, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full; 9 2. Defendant Marsh’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 28) is granted; 10 3. Defendant Weatherford’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 31) is granted; 11 4. The due process claims against defendants Marsh and Weatherford are dismissed, 12 13 without prejudice; and 5. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 43) is denied as having 14 15 16 been rendered moot by this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2017 UNITED STATES 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?