Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James M. Milliken v. D. Lightfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 21, 2011

JAMES M. MILLIKEN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. LIGHTFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff James M. Milliken, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order No. 262, and Local Rule 302(c)(17). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Magistrate Judge Moulds recommended that the court deny defendants' motion in his Findings and Recommendations issued June 21, 2011. Defendants did not file objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

This court has reviewed the record and the Findings and Recommendations and will adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny defendants' motion to dismiss. Although the Magistrate Judge did not cite to or discuss the Supreme Court's most recent decision addressing motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, --- U.S. ----(2009), the court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge applied the proper standard, especially given the Magistrate Judge's discussion of Starr v. Baca, 633 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2011). In Starr, the Ninth Circuit addressed Iqbal's effect on Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard and "supervisor liability" under § 1983, which were both at issue in defendants' motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, because the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and analysis of relevant law, the court will adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations of June 21, 2011, be, and the same hereby are, adopted in full; and (2) defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be, and same hereby is, DENIED.

20110721

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.