(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al, No. 1:2007cv00988 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DISMISSING Certain Claims From 31 Second Amended Complaint signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/10/2009. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CLARENCE E. HOWARD, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-GSA PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. W. J. SULLIVAN, et al., (Docs. 31 and 32) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Clarence E. Howard, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 18 On October 9, 2009, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, 19 and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A. Plaintiff was given thirty days within which to file any objections. Plaintiff filed a timely 21 Objection on October 29, 2009. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 24 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s Objection 25 provides no basis for declining to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. 28 The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 9, 2009, is adopted in full; /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff ’s second amended complaint against 2 Defendant Kamel for violation of the Due Process Clause and violation of the Eighth 3 Amendment; 4 3. 5 6 official capacity are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 4. 7 8 9 Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief and his claim against Defendant Kamel in his Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and 5. Plaintiff’s state law tort claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act and for failure to state a claim. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 10, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.