Coston v. Rahimifar et al
Filing
25
ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 16 Motion to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/21/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DANIEL MURPHY COSTON,
Plaintiff,
10
13
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
11
12
Case No. 1:17-cv-00765-LJO-JDP
ECF Nos. 16, 24
MAJID RAHIMIFAR and MUSHTAQ
AHMED,
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff Daniel Murphy Coston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to
17
a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
18
On October 23, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and
19
recommendations that the Court deny defendant Mushtaq Ahmed’s motion to dismiss.
20
ECF No. 24. The parties had an opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations.
21
No objections were filed, and the time to do so has now passed.
22
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
23
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
24
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
25
analysis.
26
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
27
1.
28
The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on October 23,
2018, ECF No. 24, are adopted in full;
1
1
2.
Defendant Mushtaq Ahmed’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is denied; and
2
3.
This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
December 21, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?