Holguin v. Wicks

Filing 34

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO HOLGUIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS R. WICKS, 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 29) 16 17 Plaintiff Pablo Holguin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 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 21 22 complaint (Doc. No. 28) and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this 23 action proceed on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Wicks 24 based on the alleged denial of plaintiff’s right to call an identified witness in his defense at his 25 prison disciplinary hearing. (Doc. No. 29.) However, the magistrate judge recommended that 26 plaintiff’s claims against defendant Wicks for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an 27 alleged false or inadequately pled Rule Violation Report (“RVR”), and for violation of the 28 ///// 1 1 Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause based on the allegedly insufficient RVR, be 2 dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.) 3 The findings and recommendations were served on all parties appearing in this action, and 4 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. 5 More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 8 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2017 (Doc. No. 29), are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim 13 against defendant Wicks based on the alleged denial of plaintiff’s right to call an 14 identified witness in his defense at his prison disciplinary hearing; 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?