(PC) Poslof v. CA Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitations, et al, No. 1:2013cv01935 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, Dismissing Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim Of Deliberate Indifference, And Referring Matter Back To Magistrate Judge For Initiation Of Service Of Process (ECF Nos. 28 , 29 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/12/2015. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONNIE LEE POSLOF, Sr., 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01935-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS [ECF Nos. 28, 29] Plaintiff Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation which was 21 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 22 be filed within twenty days. 23 Plaintiff filed objections on December 3, 2014. Local Rule 304(b). 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 3, 2014 is adopted in full; and 1 This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim against Defendant Beard and 1 2. 2 Does 1 through 10; 3 3. 4 need is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 5 4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: January 12, 2015 9 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.