Goldsmith v. Davis, et al
Filing
33
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/23/2012 32 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 16 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1st Amendment retaliation claim without prejudice. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JAMES K. GOLDSMITH,
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
No. CIV S-10-1995 KJM EFB P
L. DAVIS, 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 January 6, 2012, 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. Neither party has filed
22
objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
23
24
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
25
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
26
/////
1
1
1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, 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 January 6, 2012, are adopted in full;
5
2. Defendants’ April 25, 2011 motion to dismiss is granted; and
6
3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed from this action
7
without prejudice.
8
DATED: Mach 23, 2012.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?