(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al, No. 1:2008cv01186 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: **VACATED Pursuant to 30 Order** ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2009. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 13, 2009, are adopted in full; and Plaintiffs Equal Protection and Due Process claims are dismissed; Defendant Guzman is dismissed. (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al Doc. 26 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 DANNY JAMES COHEA, Plaintiff, 1: 08 CV 01186 LJO YNP SMS (PC) vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS (#19) 9 10 11 DERRAL ADAMS, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter 16 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 17 Rule 72-302. 18 On August 13, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 19 dismissal of certain claims and defendants. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file 20 objections within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and 21 recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 24 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 25 proper analysis. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 3 13, 2009, are adopted in full; and 4 2. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection and Due Process claims are dismissed. 5 3. Defendant Guzman is dismissed. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 15, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
