(PC) Tung v. Hartley et al, No. 1:2008cv00457 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING Certain Defendants and Claims; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel; and ORDER REFERRING Matter to Magistrate Judge for Service of Process, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/2/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Tung v. Hartley et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00457-OWW-GBC PC BALWINDER SINGH TUNG, 10 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ROBERT DOYLE, et al., 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 27, 28) 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Balwinder Singh Tung (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 26, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint and 20 issued a findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and parties. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff filed a timely objection on February 28, 2011. The objection has been 22 considered. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 24 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned 25 finds the report and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations, issued January 26, 2011, is adopted in full; 28 2. This action shall proceed on the third amended complaint, filed January 20, 2011, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against Defendants Schwarzenegger and Cate for adopting policies that violated the 2 Eighth Amendment while acting in their official capacity; 3 3. 4 5 for failure to state a claim; 4. 6 7 Plaintiff’s second, third, and fourth causes of action are dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 5. 8 Doe Defendants are dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them; 9 6. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are dismissed; 10 7. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED; and 11 8. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of 12 process. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 2, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 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.