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.

Alvaro Quezada v. A. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 25, 2012

ALVARO QUEZADA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. HEDGPETH, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND R EC OMMENDATIONS , DIS MIS S ING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND R E F E R R IN G M A T T E R B A C K T O MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS (ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Alvaro Quezada ("Plaintiff") 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 October 17, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants from this action. After obtaining several extensions of time, Plaintiff failed to file a timely objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 October 17, 2011, is adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed October 4, 2010, against Defendants Gricewich for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

3. Plaintiff's access to the court, due process, Eighth Amendment, and equal protection claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

4. Defendants Hedgpeth and Harrington are dismissed, with prejudice, from this action for failure to state a claim under section 1983; and

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120425

© 1992-2012 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.