Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440-5/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHERMAN MANNING and 

PETER ANDRIST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. BUNNELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs, a state prisoner and his publisher, are proceeding with counsel in a 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 May 24, 2013, 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. Plaintiffs were granted an 

extension of time (ECF No. 66) to file objections to the findings and recommendations and have 

done so. Defendants Humphries, Johnson, Ralls and Wenker filed a reply to the objections. 

 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 file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 71 Filed 08/05/13 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

analysis. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 24, 2013, are adopted in full; and 

 2. The motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 19, 25, and 45), are GRANTED as follows: 

A. Claim One, alleging violation of the Eighth Amendment and pendent state law 

claims based on the Valley Fever allegations, and the related prayer for injunctive 

relief regarding medical care for Valley Fever, is dismissed with prejudice; 

B. Claims Three and Four, alleging negligence, are dismissed with prejudice; 

C. Claim Five, alleging tortious interference with contract and/or interference with 

prospective business advantage, is dismissed with prejudice; 

D. Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing his 

transfer is dismissed with prejudice; 

E. Claim Two is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiffs are granted leave to 

amend their claim(s) premised on violations of the First Amendment, retaliation 

for the exercise of First Amendment rights, and related conspiracy; and 

F. Plaintiffs must file any second amended complaint within twenty-eight days of the 

date this order is filed. 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 71 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 2