-CKD (PC) Harris v. State of California et al, No. 2:2009cv01557 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/27/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/27/11, 43 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' MOTION to DISMISS 27 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Granted as to Pla intiff's claims against defendants Ordez, Gudino, Noack, Elsey, Savage and San Joaquin County thereby resulting in their being dismissed from this action; and Denied as to plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Thomas. Defendant Thomas is ordered to file her answer within twenty-one days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CKD (PC) Harris v. State of California et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WAYDE HOLLIS HARRIS, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1557 GEB CKD P vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 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 General Order No. 262. 19 On July 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 23 1 24 25 26 In his objections, plaintiff suggests that he be allowed to amend his operative complaint to cure deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. However, plaintiff fails to point to any new allegations of fact which would save any of the claims recommended for dismissal. Also, the court notes that plaintiff filed “supplemental objections” on September 12, 2011 without seeking leave to do so. Those objections are not considered. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2011, are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27) is granted in part and denied in 8 part as follows: 9 A. Granted as to plaintiff’s claims against defendants Ordez, Gudino, 10 Noack, Elsey, Savage and San Joaquin County thereby resulting in their being dismissed from 11 this action; and 12 13 14 15 B. Denied as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Thomas. 3. Defendant Thomas is ordered to file her answer within twenty-one days. Dated: September 27, 2011 16 17 18 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.
