(PC) Hamilton v. Yates et al, No. 1:2010cv01925 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/09/2012. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hamilton v. Yates et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PAUL C. HAMILTON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. J.A. YATES, et al., 13 14 1:10-cv-1925-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (ECF No. 23) Defendants. _______________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff Paul C. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On October 4, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations, 20 recommending dismissal of one of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has failed to file 21 objections. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this 23 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 24 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 25 analysis. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 /// 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 4, 2012, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his Eighth Amendment conditions of 5 confinement claim against Defendants Mattingly, Trimble, Spearman, and Yates; 6 3. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment be dismissed; and 7 4. Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise defend against this action within thirty 8 9 10 days of entry of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 November 9, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 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.
