(PC) Wright v. Shannon et al, No. 1:2005cv01485 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/4/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wright v. Shannon et al Doc. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAYMOND WRIGHT, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01485-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. 53) 12 13 R. SHANNON, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Raymond Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On March 15, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Rumbles for the 20 violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. #53.) The Magistrate Judge 21 recommended that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourth Amendment claims, due process 22 claims, equal claims, and claims related to his disciplinary hearings be dismissed. The Magistrate 23 Judge also recommended that Defendants R. Shannon, T. Hudgins, E. Park, M.C. Voss, James Yates, 24 J.M. Mattingly, J.L. Scott, L. Fugate, D. Huckaby, R. Lantz, J. Collier, C.O. Redding, S. DeShazo, 25 E. Zamora, A. Romero, J.A. Perez, I. Villa, and L. Wiest be dismissed from this action. The 26 Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any 27 objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of date on 28 which they were served. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 2 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 3 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. The March 15, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourth Amendment claims, due process claims, 7 equal claims, and claims related to his disciplinary hearings are DISMISSED; and 8 3. Defendants R. Shannon, T. Hudgins, E. Park, M.C. Voss, James Yates, J.M. 9 Mattingly, J.L. Scott, L. Fugate, D. Huckaby, R. Lantz, J. Collier, C.O. Redding, S. 10 DeShazo, E. Zamora, A. Romero, J.A. Perez, I. Villa, and L. Wiest are DISMISSED 11 from this action. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 June 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
