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.

Monte L. Haney v. M. P. Hernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 27, 2012

MONTE L. HANEY
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. P. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 26) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Monte L. Haney is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 February 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's complaint and issued a findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and parties allowing Plaintiff to file objections within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. More than thirty days have passed and no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned finds the report and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation, issued February 10, 2012, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's claims based upon the denial of exercise from December 16, 2006 to March 15, 2007, are dismissed, without leave to amend, as duplicative of Haney v. Adams, 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-GBC;

3. Plaintiff's claims that relate to Plaintiff grieving the denial of exercise from December 16, 2006 to March 15, 2007, are dismissed as violating Rule 18;

4. Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is dismissed, without leave to amend, as unnecessary;

5. Defendants Botello, Rickman, Oliver, Torres, T. Cano, and T. Camp*fn1 are dismissed from this action;

6. Plaintiff's complaint, filed May 20, 2010, is dismissed, with leave to amend only Plaintiff's claims regarding the rule violation hearing.

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint; and

8. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.