Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01181/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01181-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE ANTHONY GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01181 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Document 12)

Plaintiff Joe Anthony Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on July 29, 2014. 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 February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this 

action go forward against Defendants Tate, Shiesha, Longcrier and Lewis for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections must be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff has not filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 analysis.

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/14/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 12, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. This action SHALL go forward against Defendants Tate, Shiesha, Longcrier and 

Lewis for violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 

3. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2