-SKO (PC) Davis v. Villagrana et al, No. 1:2009cv01897 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Parties; and ORDER REFERRING Action Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/20/2011. Defendants T. Dunn and R. Roehlk terminated. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
-SKO (PC) Davis v. Villagrana et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANCIS W. DAVIS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01897-AWI-SKO PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND PARTIES, AND REFERRING ACTION BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS v. T. VILLAGRANA, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 1 and 11) 14 / 15 Plaintiff Francis W. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2009. The matter was referred to a 17 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On February 1, 2011, a Findings and Recommendations was filed in which the Magistrate 19 Judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s due process claim, 20 Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, and Defendants Dunn and Roehlk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff 21 filed a timely Objection on February 25, 2011. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 23 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 24 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on February 1, 2011; 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. 2 3 This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant Villagrana for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; 3. 4 Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 5 4. Defendants Dunn and Roehlk are dismissed from this action; and 6 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 0m8i78 June 20, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 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.