(PC) Aaron v. Cano et al, No. 1:2008cv00664 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Order For Action To Proceed On October 21, 2009 Amended Complaint Against Defendants I. Bueno, L. Cano, And S. Cano For Retaliation (Doc. 32 ); signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/10/2010. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Aaron v. Cano et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) S. CANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ____________________________________) GEORGE AARON, JR., 12 13 14 15 16 17 CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-00664-AWI-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER FOR ACTION TO PROCEED ON OCTOBER 21, 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS I. BUENO, L. CANO, AND S. CANO FOR RETALIATION (Doc. 32) 18 19 Plaintiff George Aaron Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 22 302. 23 On July 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 24 was served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice to the Plaintiff that any objections to the 25 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The Plaintiff filed an objection 26 to the Findings and Recommendations on August 20, 2010. In his objection, Plaintiff asserts that he 27 has suffered “actual injury” since he was “relegated to settle the case for an unsatisfactory amount.” 28 The Plaintiff still does not present facts which would demonstrate that he has a cognizable access to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 courts claim. Plaintiff’s voluntary decision to settle the case does not demonstrate that he was 2 denied access to the courts. Moreover, Plaintiff’s assertion that if circumstances were different, 3 Plaintiff could have been more successful in litigating his claim or could have obtained a more 4 satisfactory settlement is speculative and cannot establish actual injury. See Madrid v. Gomez, 5 190 F.3d 990, 995-96 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 7 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and Plaintiff’s objections, the 8 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 28, 2010, is adopted in full. 11 2. The action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on October 21, 2009; 12 against Defendants I. Bueno, L. Cano and S. Cano for retaliation against Plaintiff’s 13 exercise of his First Amendment rights; and 14 3. 15 16 Plaintiff’s access to courts claims and Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0m8i78 December 10, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
