UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 6, 2010
CHAUNCEY HOLLIS, PLAINTIFF,
R. GONZALEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Chauncey Hollis ("plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 302.
On June 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2010, are adopted in full;
2) This action proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed May 26, 2009, against Defendant Sweeney for violation of the Fourth Amendment;
3) Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Gonzalez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment are DISMISSED without prejudice;
4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hackett, Hawkins, Reed and Sampson are DISMISSED without prejudice;
5) Plaintiff's claims arising at Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility and at the California Institute for Men are DISMISSED without prejudice;
6) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Director of CDCR are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
7) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.