(PC) Lipsey v. Davey, et al., No. 1:2017cv01706 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DISMISSING certain Claims and Defendants; this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/21/18. (D. Davey, Gallager, Lirones, - Moser, S. Parks, A. Bueno and City of Corcoran terminated) (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01706-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS D. DAVEY, et al., Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 21) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 22, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s retaliation and California Bane Act 23 claims brought against defendant A. Randolph, and that all other claims and defendants be 24 dismissed from the action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 25 No. 20.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 26 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) On 27 June 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a response stating that he had no objections to the findings and 28 recommendations. (Doc. No. 21.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 2 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. 7 8 adopted in full; 2. 9 10 3. 15 16 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 4. 13 14 This action shall procced only on plaintiff’s retaliation and California Bane Act claims against defendant A. Randolph; 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on June 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 20) are This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 21, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
