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)

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