Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01825/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01825-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DeJESUS RODRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-1825 DFL EFB (GGH) PS

vs.

PAT MEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On June 21, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Although plaintiff filed an appeal with the

Ninth Circuit on July 11, 2006, no objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations as to plaintiff’s 42 § 1983 claim alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. 

The court, however, declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations as to

Case 2:05-cv-01825-RRB-EFB Document 44 Filed 03/28/07 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

2

plaintiff’s § 1983 claim alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. 

The court finds that this claim, liberally construed, meets the pleading standards under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff has pleaded the claim with enough specificity to allow defendants to seek

more information by way of discovery.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim

alleging an Eighth Amendment violation; and

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim

alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation.

DATED: March 28, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/rodriguez.jo

Case 2:05-cv-01825-RRB-EFB Document 44 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2