Farley v. Virga et al
Filing
92
ORDER ADOPTING 89 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/23/2015. Defendants' 42 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims brought against defendants Virga and Hamkar. Defendants' 42 Mo tion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to those claims brought against defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart in their official capacities. Plaintiff William Farley has 20 days from date of Order is signed to file an Amended Complaint, if he can do so consistent with this Order. If plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within 20 days from date of this Order, all defendants shall respond. If plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint within 20 days from the dat e Order is signed, defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart shall file a Response to plaintiff's 11 First Amendment Complaint by addressing those claims brought against them in their personal capacities. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
WILLIAM D. FARLEY,
Plaintiff,
14
15
CIV. NO. 2:13-1751 WBS KJN P
ORDER
v.
16
17
T. VIRGA, et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
----oo0oo----
20
Plaintiff William D. Farley is a state prisoner,
21
22
proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
23
§ 1983.
24
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
25
302(c)(17).
26
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
On January 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed
27
Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) that were served on all
28
parties and which contained notice to all parties that any
1
1
objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within fourteen days.
2
(F&Rs at 10 (Docket No. 89).)
3
failure to file objections within that time may waive the right
4
to appeal the District Court’s order.
5
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
the F&Rs.
The parties were advised that
(Id.); Martinez v. Ylst,
No party has filed objections to
The court has reviewed the file and finds the F&Rs to
7
8
be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s
9
analysis.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
(1)
The Findings and Recommendations filed January 28,
12
2015, be, and the same hereby are, adopted in
13
full;
14
(2)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be,
15
and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to all claims
16
brought against defendants Virga and Hamkar;
17
(3)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be,
18
and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to those claims
19
brought against defendants Miers, Delaney, May,
20
Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart
21
in their official capacities;
22
(4)
Plaintiff William Farley has twenty days from the
23
date this Order is signed to file an amended
24
complaint, if he can do so consistent with this
25
Order.
26
(5)
If plaintiff files an amended complaint within
27
twenty days from the date this Order is signed,
28
all defendants shall respond to that amended
2
complaint;
1
(6)
2
If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint
3
within twenty days from the date this Order is
4
signed, defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins,
5
Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart shall file
6
a response to plaintiff’s First Amendment
7
Complaint (Docket No. 11) by addressing those
8
claims brought against them in their personal
9
capacities.
10
Dated:
February 23, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?