(PC) Allen v. Hubbard et al, No. 1:2016cv01751 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 25 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Sever and Transfer of Claims Against Defendant Riet and Dismissal of Remaining Claims Against Defendant Morgan, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/23/18. CASE TRANSFERRED to Central District of California, as to Defendant Riet Only. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW ALLEN, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 S. HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-01751-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SEVER AND TRANSFER OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT RIET AND DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MORGAN (ECF No. 25) 16 17 Plaintiff Matthew Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 9, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Riet arising from events at Lancaster 22 State Prison be severed from this action and transferred to the Central District of California; 23 (2) Plaintiff’s federal claims against Officer Morgan be dismissed from this action for failure to 24 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed 25 without prejudice. (ECF No. 25.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff 26 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 27 service. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on April 19, 2018. (ECF No. 26). 28 /// 1 1 In his objections, Plaintiff merely states that he feels that this case could be settled for 2 $500 to $1,500, and argues that he has clearly been a victim of CDC’s negligence. However, 3 none of Plaintiff’s objections provide a legal basis on which to question the Magistrate Judge’s 4 findings and recommendations. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case and carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections. 7 The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by 8 the record and by proper analysis. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 9, 2018, (ECF No. 25), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Riet arising from events at Lancaster State Prison are severed from this action and transferred to the Central District of California; 3. Plaintiff’s federal claims against Officer Morgan are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 16 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice; 17 5. This action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 18 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 23, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
