(PC) Davis v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:2007cv00696 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings And Recommendations, Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (Docs. 40 and 45 ), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/9/2010. (Scrivner, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Davis v. Hedgpeth Doc. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DORIAN DAVIS a.k.a. WALI AT-TAQI DAVIS, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00696-OWW-SMS PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 11 12 v. 13 A. HEDGPETH, 14 (Docs. 40 and 45) Defendant. 15 / 16 Plaintiff Dorian Davis a.k.a. Wali At-Taqi Davis is a state 17 prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 22 Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which 23 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings 24 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The 25 parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and 26 Recommendations. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 2 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 3 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Having 7 8 is adopted in full; 2. 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 19, 2010, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for failure to exhaust is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process 11 claim for failure to exhaust is GRANTED and the claim is 12 dismissed from this action without prejudice; 13 4. 14 15 Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim is DENIED; 5. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth 16 Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED; 17 and 18 19 6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 9, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.