(PC) Pruitt v. Clark, et al., No. 1:2007cv01709 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Claims And Parties, And Referring Matter To Magistrate Judge For Service Of Process (Docs. 8 , 9 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/2/2010. (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Pruitt v. Clark, et al. Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM B. PRUITT, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01709-AWI-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND PARTIES, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS v. CLARK, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 8 and 9) / 14 15 Plaintiff William B. Pruitt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 26, 2007. The matter was referred to 17 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On August 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and issued 19 a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and parties. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on August 19, 2010. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 22 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 23 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 3, 2010, is adopted in full; 26 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed January 15, 2010, 27 28 against Defendants Swimford, Bonilla, Laura, Curtiss, and Wan for violation of the /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Fourth Amendment arising out of the routine cross-gender strip searches occurring 2 in work change; 3 3. 4 5 Hall, and Burleson is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 4. 6 7 Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 5. 8 9 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants Clark, Fisher, Watking, Defendants Clark, Fisher, Watking, Hall, and Burleson are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and 6. 10 This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 0m8i78 September 2, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
