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.

Garcia v. Biter

United States District Court, Eastern District of California

January 9, 2015

FELIPE GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
M. BITER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND PARTIES, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (DOCS. 21 AND 28)

Lawrence J. O'Neill, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. 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 December 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiffs third amended complaint and recommended dismissal of certain claims and parties. Plaintiff filed timely objections on January 7, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on December 18, 2014, is adopted in full;
2. This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiffs third amended complaint against Defendants Hernandez, Mosqueda, and Baker for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and endangering Plaintiff safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. Plaintiffs claims arising from the allegations set forth in paragraphs 10 through 13 are dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim;
4. Plaintiffs retaliation claim arising from the rules violation report issued by Defendant Hernandez, to the extent one is alleged, is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
5. Plaintiffs section 1983 equal protection claim and section 1985(3) claim are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
6. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Hudspeth and Biter are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
7. Plaintiffs request for declaratory relief is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and
8. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process.

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.