IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 4, 2008
RONALD ADAMS, PLAINTIFF,
C. GIBSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On April 29, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
On May 9, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order filed April 29, 2008, granting defendants' September 28, 2007, motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Read with leave to amend. The court construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 29, 2008, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' September 28, 2007, motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims; defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Equal Protection and Due Process claims is granted;
3. The Equal Protection and Due Process claims against defendants Walker and Kernan are dismissed;
4. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed April 29, 2008, is affirmed;
5. Plaintiff's amended complaint is due within twenty days of the date of this order.