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)

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