(PC) Brookins v. McDonald, No. 2:2009cv00841 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 8/11/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations are ADOTED IN FULL; dfts' motion to dismiss 24 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims arising from H DSP 08-0502 is granted; dfts motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims arising from HDSP 08-0757 is denied; and dfts motion to dismiss plaintiffs remaining claims as unexhausted is granted; plaintiffs injunctive relief claims are dismissed; and plaintiffs May 4, 2009 complaint is dismissed and plaintiff is granted 30days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the findings and recommendations filed 6/22/10. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Brookins v. McDonald Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MELVIN BROOKINS, 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 No. 2:09-cv-0841 FCD KJN P MICHAEL MCDONALD, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 22, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 23 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 22, 2010, are adopted in full. 2 2. Defendants’ March 8, 2010 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in 3 part as follows: a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arising from HDSP 4 5 6 7 8 9 08-0502 is granted; b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arising from HDSP 08-0757 is denied; and c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claims as unexhausted is granted. 10 3. Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are dismissed; and 11 4. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2009 complaint is dismissed and plaintiff is granted thirty 12 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the findings and 13 recommendations filed June 22, 2010. 14 DATED: August 11, 2010. 15 16 17 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
