(PC) Gonzales v. Price et al, No. 1:2007cv01391 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations 12 ; ORDER for this action to proceed only against Defendants Price, Frescura, Vikjord, Pinzon and M. Castro, on Plaintiff's first amendment claims and dismissing all other claims and Defendants: J. Munoz; Darrel Adams and Kelley terminated, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/05/2010. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gonzales v. Price et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL GONZALES, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. PRICE, et al., 15 17 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS PRICE, FRESCURA, VIKJORD, PINZON, AND M. CASTRO, ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 16 1:07-cv-01391-AWI-SMS-PC _____________________________/ Michael Gonzales (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 20 On February 18, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 21 that this action proceed only against defendants Price, K. Frescura, B.S. Vikjord, M. Castro, and R. 22 Pinzon on plaintiff's First Amendment claims, and all other claims and defendants be dismissed. 23 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within 24 thirty days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and 25 recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 27 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. 5 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 18, 2010, are adopted in full; 6 2. This action now proceeds only against defendants Price, K. Frescura, B.S. 7 Vikjord, M. Castro, and R. Pinzon, on plaintiff's claims for retaliation and for refusal to mail his 8 correspondence, in violation of the First Amendment; 9 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 10 4. Plaintiff's claims for theft of personal property, verbal harassment, forced 11 medication, denial of showers, conspiracy, supervisory liability, and improper inmate appeals are 12 dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; 13 5. Defendants E. Castro, J. Munoz, Warden Darrel Adams, and Kelley are 14 dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be 15 granted against them; and 16 17 6. The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants E. Castro, J. Munoz, Warden Darrel Adams, and Kelley from this action on the court's docket. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 0m8i78 April 5, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
