Martinez v. Hoover, et al

Filing 54

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARCHIE A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-09-0680-KJM-CMK-P vs. ORDER G. HOOVER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 18 Eastern District of California local rules. 19 On September 6, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 21 within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 22 The court thus presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 23 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 25 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 26 be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 6, 2011, are adopted 4 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) is granted in part and denied in 5 part, as follows: 3 in full; 6 a. To the extent plaintiff is claiming due process violation 7 relating to his prison disciplinary proceedings or placement in administrative 8 segregation, such claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; 9 10 b. claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; 11 12 To the extent plaintiff is claiming false imprisonment, such c. To the extent plaintiff is claiming bribery, such claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; 13 d. 14 defendant Blim only is granted; 15 e. 16 The motion to dismiss defendants Blim and Olivas from this action is denied; 17 18 The motion to dismiss the retaliation claims against f. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force, retaliation and medical treatment claims except as outlined above; and 19 3. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 48) is granted, and Plaintiff’s motion 20 for leave to file a surreply (Doc. 49) and request for additional time in which to do so (Doc. 46) 21 are denied. 22 DATED: September 28, 2011. 23 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 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?