(PC) Rodriguez v. Brown, et al., No. 1:2015cv01754 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Defendant's 19 Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims be Granted, without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/5/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants. 1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS BE GRANTED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF Nos. 19, 27.) 16 17 Joseph D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 1, 2016, the the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 21 Recommendations that Defendant Sherman’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) be granted and 22 that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice (ECF No. 27). This was served 23 on Plaintiff that same day and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 24 twenty days. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file any objections. 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 1, 2016 (ECF No. 27), are adopted in full; 1. Defendant Sherman’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED; 1 1 2. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed from this case without prejudice; and 2 3. This case will proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Sherman for 3 unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 4 Amendment. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 5, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 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.