(PC) McBounds v. Clays et al, No. 2:2019cv02208 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/23/2022 ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations in full, and GRANTING 22 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's retaliation claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim for violation of the Due Process Clause arising from the loss of his personal property is DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants are ORDERED to answer plaintiff's remaining Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest claims within 14 days of the date of this order.(Huang, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) McBounds v. Clays et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK McBOUNDS, 12 No. 2: 19-cv-2208 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. CLAYS, et al, 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 26, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is granted; 6 3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claims are dismissed with prejudice; 7 4. Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Due Process Clause arising from the loss of his 8 9 personal property is dismissed without prejudice; and 5. Defendants are ordered to answer plaintiff’s remaining Fourteenth Amendment liberty 10 interest claims within fourteen days of the date of this order. 11 DATED: May 23, 2022. 12 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.
