Evans v. Fox et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/10/2020 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 12/23/2019 in full; DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims against defendants Fox, Zometa, Ballenger, Tabbs, and Does 1-50 without leave to amend ; DISMISSING Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against defendants Wong, Lassiter, and Bjorson without leave to amend; and REFERRING this matter back to the magistrate judge to effectuate service of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Montemayor, Wong, Lassiter, and Bjorson pursuant to the Court's E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GENE EVANS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1997-JAM-EFB P

v.

ORDER

ROBERT FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On December 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

24
25

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

26

ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 23, 2019, are adopted in full;

27
28

/////
1

1
2
3
4

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Fox, Zometa, Ballenger, Tabbs, and Does 1-50
are dismissed without leave to amend;
3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against defendants Wong, Lassiter, and Bjorson be
dismissed without leave to amend; and

5

4. This matter be referred back to the magistrate judge to effectuate service of plaintiff’s

6

Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Montemayor, Wong, Lassiter, and

7

Bjorson pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the

8

Eastern District of California.

9
10
11

DATED: August 10, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2