(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al, No. 1:2008cv01186 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 49 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/13/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DANNY JAMES COHEA, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 49) 12 13 D. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Danny James Cohea (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On June 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that certain claims be dismissed from this action. (Doc. 49.) The Findings and 20 Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings 21 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which the Findings and 22 Recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed objections on July 12, 2010. (Doc. #50.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 24 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 25 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Plaintiff’s objections to the Findings and Recommendations fail to properly explain why Plaintiff 27 voluntarily consented to the dismissal of his equal protection and due process claims and his claims 28 against Defendant Guzman on May 3, 2010 and now wishes to rescind his consent. The Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 previously gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies in these 2 claims and Plaintiff declined to amend his complaint. The Court also informed Plaintiff of the 3 deficiencies in these claims. Plaintiff does not wish to amend these claims to cure the deficiencies 4 identified by the Court. Therefore, the Court will dismiss these claims for failing to state a 5 cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. The June 22, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s equal protection claims, due process claims, and claims against Defendant 9 Guzman are DISMISSED; and 10 3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Vela-Lopez, Kush, 11 Jones, Hicinbothem, and Does 1-5 for retaliation, and Plaintiff’s claims against 12 Defendants Vela-Lopez, Jones, Hicinbothem, and Adams for interfering with 13 Plaintiff’s right of access to the Courts. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: b9ed48 September 13, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
