(PC) Denegal v. Brazelton et al, No. 1:2014cv01410 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 20 Findings and Recommendations, Grantin in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/16. J. D. Lozano, K. D. Geringer and J. Knight terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH DARNELL DENEGAL, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:14-cv-01410-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. P.D. BRAZELTON et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 11, 20) 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Keith Darnell Denegal is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings 23 and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted as to 24 defendants Knight, Lozano and Geringer and denied as to defendant Brazelton and that plaintiff’s 25 claim for injunctive relief be dismissed as moot. Those findings and recommendations were 26 served on the parties and contained a notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. 27 (Doc. No. 20.) Thereafter, plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an objection 28 to the findings and recommendations was granted. (Doc. No. 23.) Nonetheless, plaintiff has not 1 1 filed objections within the extended period of time, which has long since expired. Defendants 2 also have not filed objections. 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of 4 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and 5 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court’s analysis with 6 respect to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief remains unchanged by his subsequent transfer to 7 Salinas Valley State Prison (see Doc. No. 21). 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to defendants Knight, 11 Lozano, and Geringer is GRANTED; 12 3. Defendants Knight, Lozano, and Geringer are DISMISSED from the action; 13 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief as to defendant 14 Brazelton is DENIED; and 15 5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as MOOT. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: January 8, 2016 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.