Hanley v. Opinski et al, No. 1:2016cv00391 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for action to proceed on cognizable Fourteenth Amendment Claim and to dismiss non-cognizable claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLLAND HANLEY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 OPINSKI, et al., 15 No. 1:16-cv-00391-DAD-SAB Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AND TO DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS (Doc. No. 9) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Rolland Hanley is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil action 20 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District 22 Court for the Eastern District of California. 23 On March 26, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the action proceed only on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims against 25 defendants Opinski and Gorman and that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims with be dismissed 26 with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The findings and recommendations were served on 27 plaintiff with notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. No 28 objections were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 3. 14 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice due to his failure to state a claim in that respect; and 4. 12 13 Plaintiff shall proceed on his cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Gorman and Opinski; 10 11 The findings and recommendations filed March 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) are The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including the initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.