(PC) Stratmon v. Tucker et al, No. 1:2012cv01837 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Morris for Retaliation and Interference With Incoming Mail; and ORDER Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/12/2014. Marvin Tucker, Mukhitar Sahota and E. Stokes terminated. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID L STRATMON, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 1:12-cv-01837-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14.) vs. ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT MORRIS FOR RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH INCOMING MAIL M. TUCKER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 15 David L. Stratmon (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 17 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 9, 18 2012. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 2, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending 21 that this action proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation and interference with 22 incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that all other claims 23 and defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 24 14.) 25 Recommendations within twenty days. 26 opposition to the Findings and Recommendations, notifying the court that he does not wish to 27 file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendant Morris for retaliation 28 and interference with mail. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of non- 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 2, 2014, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on November 9 9, 2012, against defendant Morris (Factory Manager), for retaliation and 10 interference with incoming mail, in violation of the First and Fourteenth 11 Amendments; 12 3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 13 4. Defendants Assistant Warden M. Tucker, Foreman M. Suhota, and Foreman E. 14 Stokes are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any 15 claims upon which relief may be granted against them; 16 5. 17 18 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 6. 19 20 Plaintiff’s claim concerning the loss of his prison job is DISMISSED for failure The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Tucker, Suhota, and Stokes from this action on the Court's docket; and 7. 21 This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including service of process. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 12, 2014 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.