(PC) Frank Wells v. Gonzales, No. 1:2017cv01240 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/17/2018: This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK WELLS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:17-cv-01240-DAD-EPG (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROSA GONZALES, (Doc. No. 8) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Frank Wells is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 6, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and entered 20 21 findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be allowed to proceed 22 against defendant Rosa Gonzales on plaintiff’s claims for violation of his First Amendment right 23 to free exercise of religion, violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 24 of 2000, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, unreasonable searches in violation of the 25 Fourth Amendment, and violation of California’s Bane Act. (Doc. No. 8 at 12.) In addition, the 26 magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of 27 emotional distress be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Id.) 28 ///// 1 1 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations within 21 days. On April 27, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he has no 3 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, the court hereby orders that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on April 6, 2018 9 10 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds against defendant Rosa Gonzales on plaintiff’s claims for 11 violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, violation of the 12 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, retaliation in violation 13 of the First Amendment, unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 14 and violation of California’s Bane Act; 15 3. Plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is dismissed 16 17 18 19 with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
