(PC) Sanders v. Grimes, et al.

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TROY ALEXANDER SANDERS,

12

No. 1:18-cv-01285-AWI-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
GRIMES, et al.,

15

(Doc. 38)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Troy Alexander Sanders is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

19

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

20

On July 1, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claim

22

that Defendants Grimes and Lucas interfered with his First Amendment right to send mail to the

23

courts. (Doc. 38.) The magistrate judge further recommended that Defendant Henry be dismissed

24

and that Plaintiff be allowed to seek only nominal damages in this action. (Id.) The judge found

25

that, given Plaintiff’s two opportunities to amend (see Docs. 28, 36), further amendment would be

26

futile. (Doc. 38 at 1, 10.) The magistrate judge provided Plaintiff 21 days to file objections to the

27

findings and recommendations. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time to do so

28

has passed.

1

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

2

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

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4
5

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations issued on July 1, 2020 (Doc. 38) are
ADOPTED in full;

2.

The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED, except for Plaintiff’s claim

8

that Defendants Grimes and Lucas interfered with his First Amendment right to

9

send mail to the courts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

10

3.

Defendant Henry is DISMISSED;

11

4.

Plaintiff may seek only nominal damages in this action; and,

12

5.

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

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2