Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:05-cv-1898 JAM EFB P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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. 

On August 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the

date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

and recommendations and defendants have filed a response thereto.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

////

1

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 77 Filed 10/25/12 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

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 findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2012, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dckt.

No. 36), is granted in part; 

3. Plaintiff’s due process, § 1985(2), and § 1986 claims are dismissed without

leave to amend;

4. Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Meier, Barnes, Wagner, and Coe, and

plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims are dismissed with leave to amend;

5. Plaintiff may, within thirty days, file a third amended complaint consistent

with the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations regarding the scope of leave to

amend; 

6. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is vacated. 

DATED: October 24, 2012

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 77 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 2