(PC) Ayala v. Tillery et al, No. 2:2020cv02014 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/29/2022 ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART 16 Motion to Dismiss as follows in the order; Plaintiff's 35 First Amended Complaint is deemed filed; Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order; and the matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pre-trial proceedings. (Perdue, C.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ayala v. Tillery et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNIE AYALA, 12 No. 2:20-cv-02014-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TILLERY, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Local Rules. 19 On June 22, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 21 the time specified therein. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 22 recommendations. (ECF No. 34.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), the 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 25 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 26 analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 The Findings and Recommendations filed June 22, 2022 (ECF No. 28) are ADOPTED in full. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED 4 2. 5 in part as follows: 6 a. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against 7 Defendants Cribari, Gaetano, Salcedo, Tillery, and Toles, and such claims are DISMISSED with 8 leave to amend. 9 10 b. such claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, and c. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Artal, Feltner, and Gann. 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) is deemed filed in response to this Order and is timely. 4. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint within 16 thirty (30) days of the date of this Order and, thereafter, the matter is referred back to the assigned 17 magistrate judge for further pre-trial proceedings. 18 DATED: September 29, 2022 19 20 21 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
