Lewis v. Vasquez et al

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, dismissing certain claims and defendants and referring matter back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE LEWIS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. VASQUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00131-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING
MATTER BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF No. 16]

Plaintiff Lonnie Lewis is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s damages claim for retaliation

22

against Defendants Vasquez and Stanley, and all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the

23

action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Findings and Recommendations were

24

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Over

25

fourteen days have passed, and no objections were filed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

27

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

28

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 17, 2017, are adopted in full;

3

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s damages claim for retaliation against

4
5
6
7

Defendants Vasquez and Stanley;
3.

All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a

cognizable claim for relief; and
4.

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 16, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2