(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden, No. 1:2019cv01333 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 18 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2021. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE LUIS SOSA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 1:19-cv-01333-NONE-EPG(PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED R. HULSE, (Doc. Nos. 18 & 37) 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Jorge Luis Sosa is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s complaint 19 against defendant R. Hulse for alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment 20 to be free from the excessive use of force and from sexual assault and for violation of plaintiff’s 21 rights under the First Amendment to be free from retaliation. This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On January 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the applicable statute of limitations 25 be denied. (Doc. No. 37.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 26 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 27 service. (Id. at 17.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 6 7 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 28, 2021, (Doc. No. 37), are adopted in full; 8 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED; and 9 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 12 March 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.