Holguin v. Wicks
ORDER ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/04/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
(Doc. No. 29)
Plaintiff Pablo Holguin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 16, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended
complaint (Doc. No. 28) and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this
action proceed on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Wicks
based on the alleged denial of plaintiff’s right to call an identified witness in his defense at his
prison disciplinary hearing. (Doc. No. 29.) However, the magistrate judge recommended that
plaintiff’s claims against defendant Wicks for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an
alleged false or inadequately pled Rule Violation Report (“RVR”), and for violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause based on the allegedly insufficient RVR, be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.)
The findings and recommendations were served on all parties appearing in this action, and
contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.
More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2017 (Doc. No. 29), are adopted in
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim
against defendant Wicks based on the alleged denial of plaintiff’s right to call an
identified witness in his defense at his prison disciplinary hearing;
3. All of plaintiff’s other claims against defendant Wicks, the sole named defendant, are
dismissed from this action; and
4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?