-DAD (PC) Boston v. Garcia et al, No. 2:2010cv01782 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/17/11 ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Defendants Aguila, Bayles, Grannis, Harai, McDonald and Reinsel are DISMISSED from this action. (Meuleman, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Boston v. Garcia et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE’ BOSTON, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-10-1782 KJM DAD P V. GARCIA, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 20 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case.1 Having carefully reviewed the file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2011, are adopted in full; and 7 2. Defendants Aguila, Bayles, Grannis, Harai, McDonald and Reinsel are 8 dismissed from this action. 9 DATED: October 17, 2011. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 /bost1782.804 23 24 1 25 26 The court notes that in screening the proposed amended complaint, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the magistrate judge examined the proposed amended complaint as he would during a consideration of the propriety of a motion to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). 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.
