Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999-10/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

ALEJANDRO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PURDY, 

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-00999 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Document 42)

Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 

2, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and it was 

transferred to this Court on June 24, 2014. 

Defendant Purdy filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) on March 18, 2016. 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 July 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 

motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections must be filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed 

and neither party has filed objections.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 43 Filed 08/30/16 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

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 that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 22, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Document 27) is DENIED; and

3. Defendant SHALL file a response to the Second Amended Complaint within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 43 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2