United States District Court, Eastern District of California
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT MORRIS FOR RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH INCOMING MAIL ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
David L. Stratmon (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 9, 2012. (Doc. 1.) 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 2, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation and interference with incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within twenty days. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the Findings and Recommendations, notifying the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation and interference with mail. (Doc. 15.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October
2, 2014, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on November 9, 2012, against defendant Morris (Factory Manager), for retaliation and interference with incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;
4. Defendants Assistant Warden M. Tucker, Foreman M. Suhota, and Foreman E. Stokes are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them;
5. Plaintiff’s claim concerning the loss of his prison job is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Tucker, Suhota, and Stokes from this action on the Court's docket; and
7. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, ...