The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has reviewed the file in this matter, and has read and reviewed the Second Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Second Report to which Plaintiff and Defendants have objected. The Court accepts the Second Report, adopts its findings and recommendations, and --
1. grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, as discussed in the Second Report;
3. dismisses from the action, with prejudice, all remaining claims other than Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and the portion of Claim 20 asserting improper retaliation, i.e., dismisses with prejudice Claims 3, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, the portion of Claim 20 asserting interference with court access, Claims 21, 22, 23 and the portion of Claim 28 asserting unlawful retaliation;
4. dismisses from the action, without prejudice (as unexhausted), the portion of Claim 28 asserting a violation of federal due process rights;
5. dismisses from the action all remaining defendants save those eight (namely Herrera, Mijares, Frey, Walton, Thomas, Espinoza, Villa and Moening) who are targeted in Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and/or the retaliation subclaim within Claim 20, i.e., dismisses Defendants Jeanne Woodford, C.M. Harrison, N. Grannis, R. Hughes, R.J. Dottaviano, A. Whalen, V. Danna (sued as Dana), S. Redding, F. Villalobos, K. Ross, J. Gentry, C. Gaffney, D. Foote, D. Byrnes, B. Presnell, S. Yen, G. Heater (sued as Heater/Hunter), F. Pena, D. Palacios, A. Martinez, D. Bennett, W. Contaldi, A. Licon, R. Watson, T. Schultz, A. Navarro, W. Harris, S. Stewart, J. Middleton, S. Broaddus (sued as Broadus), H. Brown and R. Beltran (sued as Bertram); and
6. withdraws its reference of this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...