Lipsey v. Davey, et al.
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DISMISSING certain Claims and Defendants; this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/21/18. (D. Davey, Gallager, Lirones, - Moser, S. Parks, A. Bueno and City of Corcoran terminated) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:17-cv-01706-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
D. DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 21)
16
17
18
Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred
20
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On June 22, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
22
recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s retaliation and California Bane Act
23
claims brought against defendant A. Randolph, and that all other claims and defendants be
24
dismissed from the action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc.
25
No. 20.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that
26
any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) On
27
June 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a response stating that he had no objections to the findings and
28
recommendations. (Doc. No. 21.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
2
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
3
file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
4
proper analysis.
5
Accordingly,
6
1.
7
8
adopted in full;
2.
9
10
3.
15
16
All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and
4.
13
14
This action shall procced only on plaintiff’s retaliation and California Bane Act
claims against defendant A. Randolph;
11
12
The findings and recommendations issued on June 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 20) are
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 21, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?