Dillingham v. Emerson
Filing
44
ORDER VACATING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issued on September 19, 2018 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/14/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
JERRY DILLINGHAM,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
N. EMERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED ON
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
(ECF No. 34)
17
18
19
Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986.
20
On September 19, 2018, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint, (ECF No. 10),
21
and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case proceed against Defendants
22
Emerson, Wilson, Wescoat, Velasco, Martines, and Loflen, in their individual capacities, for conditions
23
of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be
24
dismissed. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff was served with the findings and recommendations, and permitted
25
thirty days to file any objections. (Id. at 7-8.)
26
Plaintiff filed objections, on extension, dated November 28, 2018, which showed some intent to
27
add to or clarify his factual allegations. (ECF No. 41.) Therefore, on December 11, 2018, the Court
28
granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 42.)
1
1
On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 43.)
2
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, IT IS HEREBY
3
ORDERED that:
4
1.
5
The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 19, 2018 (ECF No. 34), are
vacated; and
2.
6
The Court will screen Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in due course.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
January 14, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?