Cannon v. Daves et al
Filing
43
ORDER ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 21 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2020. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KELVIN CANNON,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:18-cv-00666-NONE-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS BE
DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART
GALLAGHER, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 21, 42)
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Kelvin Cannon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
19
civil rights action 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On September 5, 2019, defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson moved to
22
dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No.
23
21.) Defendants also moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief on the grounds that
24
plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the prison where the alleged deprivations occurred. On
25
February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
26
recommending that the motion to dismiss the individual claims against them brought on behalf of
27
defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson be denied, and that the defendants’
28
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief be granted. (Id.) Those findings and
1
1
recommendations were served on the parties, and contained notice that objections thereto were
2
due within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 6.) No party has objected to the pending findings and
3
recommendations.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
5
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
6
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
9
10
The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 42), are
adopted in full;
2.
11
the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s individual claims against them brought on behalf
of defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson is denied;
12
3.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief is granted;
13
4.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is thus granted in part and denied in
14
15
16
17
18
part; and
5.
This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 1, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?