Cruz v. Michaels et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/13/12 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 11/30/11 43 are ADOPTED in full; The 3/29/11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by defendants Clarke, Mallet, Reynolds, and Walker is DENIED in part and the Request for dismissal brought by defendants Clarke, Mallet, and Reynolds are DENIED. Defendants Clarke, Mallet, and Reynolds are ordered to file an answer to the complaint within the time provided in Rule 12 of the FRCP. The 3/29/11 MOTION to DIS MISS 27 is GRANTED in part and the request for dismissal brought by defendant Walker is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order to attempt to state a claim against defendant Walker. (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

DANIEL CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-10-1162 KJM EFB P

MICHAELS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

16
17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 30, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

19
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 fourteen days. Defendants have filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

23
24

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

25
1

26

Defendants appear to have filed two copies of the same objections. See ECF Nos. 44,

45.
1

1

including the operative amended complaint, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

2

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 30, 2011, are adopted in

5

full.

6

2. The March 29, 2011 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Clarke, Mallet,

7

Reynolds, and Walker is denied in part and the requests for dismissal brought by defendants

8

Clarke, Mallet, and Reynolds are denied.

9
10
11
12
13

3. Defendants Clarke, Mallet, and Reynolds are ordered to file an answer to the
complaint within the time provided in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. The March 29, 2011 motion to dismiss is granted in part and the request for
dismissal brought by defendant Walker is granted.
5. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the

14

date of this order to attempt to state a claim against defendant Walker.

15

DATED: March 13, 2012.

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2