(PC) Cooks v. State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2020cv01780 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2022 ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING IN PART defendant CDCR's 20 Motion for Judgment on the pleadings as follows: Plaintiff's first cause of action as to d efendant CDCR is DISMISSED without prejudice; Plaintiff's second, third and fourth causes of action as to defendant CDCR are DISMISSED with prejudice. The matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN EDWARD COOKS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-01780-DAD-KJN (PC) v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT CDCR’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. Nos. 20, 28) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Shawn Edward Cooks is a state prisoner seeking relief in this civil rights action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 10, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 22 recommending that the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 20) filed on behalf of 23 defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) be granted in part 24 and that plaintiff’s causes of action brought against defendant CDCR be dismissed. (Doc. No. 25 28.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 26 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 10–11.) No 27 objections have been filed and the time to do so has since passed. 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, court finds the findings and 3 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued on June 10, 2022 (Doc. No. 28) are adopted in full; 2. Defendant CDCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 20) is granted 8 in part as follows: 9 a. 10 prejudice; 11 b. 12 13 16 17 Plaintiff’s second, third and fourth causes of action as to defendant CDCR are dismissed with prejudice; and 3. 14 15 Plaintiff’s first cause of action as to defendant CDCR is dismissed without The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
