(PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al, No. 2:2006cv02732 - Document 92 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 07/27/10 ADOPTING in full 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (Williams, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al Doc. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MALIK JONES, Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 12 No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P ORDER C. STIEFERMAN, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action 15 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 17 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 18 On June 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 20 objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have 21 been filed. 22 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. 26 The findings and recommendations filed June 23, 2010, are adopted in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Plaintiff is not permitted to reinstate his claims against defendants Cambine, Churray, Kimbrell and Rianda who have previously been dismissed from this case; 3. Defendants Stieferman, Rudolph, Homes, Ward, Chastain, and Pliler, are dismissed from this action, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim; 4. Harper and Burgett are dismissed from this action, but the claims against them are dismissed without prejudice; and 5. This action proceed as against the remaining defendants as set forth in the 8 Magistrate Judge’s screening order. 9 DATED: July 27, 2010. 10 11 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
