Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065-55/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN 

PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 289)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

On February 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 289.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants Bastianon

and Johnson be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(2) based on Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ statement of non-opposition. The 

Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as moot as to 

Defendants Zakari, Raygoza, and Edmonds as they already were dismissed from this 

action.

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 290 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Neither party objected to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 289), filed 

February 22, 2016, in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 285) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART;

3. Defendants Bastianon and Johnson are DISMISSED with prejudice; and

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of

further scheduling orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 290 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 2