Joey Erwin v. Ahlin et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process 10 , 11 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/7/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOEY ERWIN,

13
14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND REFERRING
MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF
PROCESS

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:18-cv-00050-SAB (PC)

v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 10, 11)

15
16
17

Plaintiff Joey Erwin, a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate

19

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On April 5, 2018, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations

21

recommending that certain claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The findings and

22

recommendations was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings

23

and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. On May 2,

24

2018, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found

25

to be cognizable in the findings and recommendations.

26

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

27

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

28

findings and 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 April 5, 2018, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

3

2

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed March 26,

4

2018, against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their official capacity for a condition of

5

confinement and deprivation of property claim based on the ban on ownership of

6

electronic devices and items;

7

3.

All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim;

8

4.

Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is dismissed; and

9

5.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of
process.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 7, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2