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