(PC) Cockrell v. Sullivan et al, No. 1:2008cv00259 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 1/30/2009 recommending DISMISSAL of Claims. Objections to F&R due by 3/4/2009. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Cockrell v. Sullivan et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANK B. COCKREALL, 10 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00259-AWI-WMW PC Plaintiff, 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS v. (Doc. 1) 12 W. J. SULLIVAN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 17 Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint I. Procedural History 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. Plaintiff filed this action on February 21, 2008. 20 On November 19, 2008, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable 21 claims against Defendant Avalos for a violation of the First Amendment. The order noted that the 22 complaint did not state a claim against Defendant Sullivan. The complaint failed to state a claim for 23 access to courts, or for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. On December 15, 2008, Plaintiff 24 notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the claims found 25 cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Sullivan be dismissed, 27 and Plaintiff’s claims of access to courts and conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 28 Amendment be dismissed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 3 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.