(PC) Lee v. Wilkinson, et al, No. 1:2009cv00722 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/08/2009 recommending that Plaintiff's Due Process, Eight Amendment, First Amendment, Cell Search and State Law Claims, as well as Defendants Matthew Cate and James Yates be DISMISSED. Objections to F&R due by 11/12/2009. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lee v. Wilkinson, et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CORNELIUS V. LEE, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 1:09-cv-00722-AWI-YNP-SMS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. L. WILKINSON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 1, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that 18 Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Defendants Wilkinson, Castellanos 19 and Shelby for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 20 Defendants Chavez and Gonzales for an illegal strip search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 21 The complaint does not state a cognizable as to Plaintiff’s Due Process, Eighth Amendment, First 22 Amendment, Cell Search, and State Law claims, as well as Defendants Matthew Cate and James 23 Yates. 24 The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his 25 willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff 26 notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the claims found 27 cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. See Noll 28 v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Due Process, Eighth 3 Amendment, First Amendment, Cell Search, and State Law claims, as well as Defendants Matthew 4 Cate and James Yates be dismissed. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 11 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: icido3 October 8, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
