(PC) Hollis v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2008cv01834 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/3/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Hollis v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHAUNCEY HOLLIS, 9 1:08-CV-01834-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 10 v. 11 (DOC. 17) R. GONZALEZ, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Chauncey Hollis (“plaintiff”) is a California state 16 prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 302. The matter was referred to a United States 20 On June 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 21 Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which 22 contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings 23 and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. 24 did 25 Recommendations. 26 not file a timely Objection to the Plaintiff Findings and In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 27 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 28 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1) 5 6 The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2010, are adopted in full; 2) This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended 7 complaint, filed May 26, 2009, against Defendant Sweeney 8 for violation of the Fourth Amendment; 9 3) Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Gonzalez for 10 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment are 11 DISMISSED without prejudice; 12 4) 13 14 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hackett, Hawkins, Reed and Sampson are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5) Plaintiff’s claims arising at Desert View Modified 15 Community Correctional Facility and at the California 16 Institute for Men are DISMISSED without prejudice; 17 6) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Director of CDCR are 18 DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim 19 upon which relief may be granted; and 20 7) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims 21 are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim 22 upon which relief may be granted. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 6, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.