(PC) Sherman v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2009cv00420 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the Findings and Recommendations 26 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/31/10: Defendants' February 11, 2010 Motion to Dismiss 19 is DENIED.(Hellings, J)
Download PDF
(PC) Sherman v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BRANDON L. SHERMAN, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00420-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 26) 12 MARTINEZ, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Brandon L. Sherman (“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 July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. #26.) The Findings and 20 Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the 21 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which the 22 Findings and Recommendations were served. No objections to the Findings and Recommendations 23 have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 /// 2 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 3 1. The July 14, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; and 4 2. Defendants’ February 11, 2010 motion to dismiss is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: b9ed48 August 31, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2