Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
(Doc. No. 19)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, Richard Scott Kindred, a civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”),

17
18

is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

19

§ 1983. 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 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations

21
22

recommending that the case proceed on plaintiff’s third amended complaint on the following

23

claims: violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure against

24

defendants Brandon Price, J. Corona, Jorge Lopez, and John/Jane Does 1–5; violation of the First

25

Amendment right to free exercise of religion against defendants J. Corona and Jorge Lopez; and

26

violation of the First Amendment right of access to the courts against defendants John/Jane Does

27

6–10. (Doc. No. 19 at 18.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended that all other claims

28

/////
1

1

asserted and defendants named in the third amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a

2

claim. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

4

recommendations within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to

5

do so has passed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

7

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

8

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly:

11

1. The findings and recommendations entered July 8, 2019 (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in
full;

12
13

2. This action now proceeds against defendants Brandon Price, J. Corona, Jose Lopez, and

14

John/Jane Does 1–5 for violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from

15

unreasonable search and seizure; against defendants J. Corona and Jose Lopez for
violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion; and against

16

John/Jane Does 6–10 for violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the

17

courts;

18

3. All other claims asserted and defendants named in the third amended complaint are
19
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and
20

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 17, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2