Jones v. Cannedy et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/24/12 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 8/8/12, are adopted in full; Defendants' motion to dismiss 44 is granted in part and denied in part; Defendants Holstrom, Foston, Canne dy, Hansen, and Baker, are dismissed from this action; Plaintiff's due process and conspiracy claims are dismissed; Defendants' qualified immunity defenses to plaintiff's Equal Protection and Eighth Amendment claims are denied; This action will proceed on plaintiff's Equal Protection and Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Virga, Lizarraga, and Mini. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHERMAN JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. CIV S-10-2174-KJM-KJN-P

vs.
C. CANNEDY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

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

18

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

19

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 8, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

25

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

26

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
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 August 8, 2012, are adopted in full.

5

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 44) is granted in part and denied in

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

part.
3. Defendants Holstrom, Foston, Cannedy, Hansen, and Baker, are dismissed
from this action.
4. Plaintiff’s due process and conspiracy claims are dismissed.
5. Defendants’ qualified immunity defenses to plaintiff’s Equal Protection and
Eighth Amendment claims are denied.
6. This action will proceed on plaintiff’s Equal Protection and Eighth

13

Amendment claims against defendants Virga, Lizarraga, and Mini.

14

DATED: September 24, 2012.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2