Jones v. Stieferman et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 07/27/10 ADOPTING in full 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (Williams, D)

Download PDF
(PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al Doc. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 full; 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MALIK JONES, Plaintiff, vs. C. STIEFERMAN, et al., Defendants. / No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On June 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 23, 2010, are adopted in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Plaintiff is not permitted to reinstate his claims against defendants Cambine, Churray, Kimbrell and Rianda who have previously been dismissed from this case; 3. Defendants Stieferman, Rudolph, Homes, Ward, Chastain, and Pliler, are dismissed from this action, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim; 4. Harper and Burgett are dismissed from this action, but the claims against them are dismissed without prejudice; and 5. This action proceed as against the remaining defendants as set forth in the Magistrate Judge's screening order. DATED: July 27, 2010. _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?