-DLB (PC) Valentine v. Yerena, No. 1:2011cv01220 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 9 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/15/12. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DLB (PC) Valentine v. Yerena Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOE LOUIS VALENTINE, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01220-LJO-DLB PC 9 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (DOC. 9) 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 J. YERENA, 12 Defendant. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Joe Louis Valentine (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. 17 Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 20 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 21 Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. Doc. 9. Plaintiff did not file an Objection 22 to the Findings and Recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 30, 2012, is adopted in full; 28 2. This action proceeds against Defendant J. Yerena for retaliation in violation of the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 First Amendment; and 3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 66h44d 6 June 15, 2012 /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
]]>
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.
