UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 28, 2009
MARK EVAN GRANGETTO, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, NORA WEBER, PLAINTIFF,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed the instant civil rights action in Kings County Superior Court on March 1, 2007. The matter was removed to this Court on March 20, 2007.
On June 23, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that Defendants' motion to dismiss be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation dated June 23, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Plaintiff's allegations regarding denial of parole and loss of good time credits are STRICKEN from the Second Amended Complaint and Defendants' motion to dismiss related to these allegations is GRANTED;
b. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Defendant Adams WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint;
c. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Defendant Kyle.
d. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on preclusion or Rooker-Feldman is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
e. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's conspiracy claim is GRANTED; and
f. Defendants' motion to dismiss DOE defendants is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.