Harris v. State of California et al
Filing
50
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/27/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/27/11, 43 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' MOTION to DISMISS 27 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Granted as to Pla intiff's claims against defendants Ordez, Gudino, Noack, Elsey, Savage and San Joaquin County thereby resulting in their being dismissed from this action; and Denied as to plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Thomas. Defendant Thomas is ordered to file her answer within twenty-one days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WAYDE HOLLIS HARRIS,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-09-1557 GEB CKD P
vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
19
On July 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
21
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed
22
objections to the findings and recommendations.1
23
1
24
25
26
In his objections, plaintiff suggests that he be allowed to amend his operative complaint
to cure deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.
However, plaintiff fails to point to any new allegations of fact which would save any of the
claims recommended for dismissal. Also, the court notes that plaintiff filed “supplemental
objections” on September 12, 2011 without seeking leave to do so. Those objections are not
considered.
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
2
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
3
file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
4
proper analysis.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2011, are adopted in full;
7
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27) is granted in part and denied in
8
part as follows:
9
A. Granted as to plaintiff’s claims against defendants Ordez, Gudino,
10
Noack, Elsey, Savage and San Joaquin County thereby resulting in their being dismissed from
11
this action; and
12
13
14
15
B. Denied as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against
defendant Thomas.
3. Defendant Thomas is ordered to file her answer within twenty-one days.
Dated: September 27, 2011
16
17
18
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?