Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02512/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02512-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO LIRA,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-2512-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

G. GARNER-EASTER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a parolee 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 25, 2008, 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 twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02512-GEB -KJM Document 46 Filed 03/13/08 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 25, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Garner-Easter’s July 10, 2007 motion to dismiss is granted as to

plaintiff’s request for damages but denied as to his request for declaratory relief;

3. The July 6, 2007 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lohse and Lee is

granted as to plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the imposition of the no-contact parole

condition, but denied as to his request for declaratory relief; and

4. The July 6, 2007 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lohse and Lee is

denied in its entirety as to plaintiff’s claim that he was denied due process by the defendants’

failure to give him adequate notice of the two charges added to the parole violation petition.

Dated: March 12, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:05-cv-02512-GEB -KJM Document 46 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2