Martinez v. Hoover, et al
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/28/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/6/11 53 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS 32 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This Action shall proceed on Pla intiff's excessive force retaliation and medical tratment claims. Defendant's MOTION to STRIKE 48 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's MOTION for leave to file a surreply 49 and Request for additional time in which to do so 46 are DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ARCHIE A. MARTINEZ,
No. CIV S-09-0680-KJM-CMK-P
G. HOOVER, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by
Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 6, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
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 thus presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to
be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations filed September 6, 2011, are adopted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) is granted in part and denied in
part, as follows:
To the extent plaintiff is claiming due process violation
relating to his prison disciplinary proceedings or placement in administrative
segregation, such claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim;
claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim;
To the extent plaintiff is claiming false imprisonment, such
To the extent plaintiff is claiming bribery, such claim is
dismissed for failure to state a claim;
defendant Blim only is granted;
The motion to dismiss defendants Blim and Olivas from
this action is denied;
The motion to dismiss the retaliation claims against
This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force,
retaliation and medical treatment claims except as outlined above; and
Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 48) is granted, and Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to file a surreply (Doc. 49) and request for additional time in which to do so (Doc. 46)
DATED: September 28, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?