Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233-7/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

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, No. CIV S-06-0233-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

R. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Eastern District of California local rules.

On September 29, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 28 Filed 01/08/07 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

The findings and recommendations concluded that plaintiff should be permitted 1

leave to amend as to defendant Campbell. Plaintiff, however, has already filed a second

amended complaint deleting defendant Campbell. Therefore, leave to amend as to defendant

Campbell is not necessary. 

2

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 29, 2006, are adopted

in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is granted in part and denied in

part;

3. Defendants’ motion is granted as to plaintiff’s due process claim based on

the mere issuance of a false rules violation report, which is dismissed with prejudice;

4. Defendants’ motion is granted as to plaintiff’s due process claim based on

job loss and lost pay, which is dismissed with prejudice;

5. Defendants’ motion is denied as to plaintiff’s due process claim based on

denial of parole; and

6. Defendants’ motion is granted as to defendant Campbell, who is dismissed

from this action;1

7. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s due process claim regarding parole

only and the matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to screen the second amended

complaint in light of this order and to issue such further orders and findings and

recommendations as are appropriate. 

DATED: January 5, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 28 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2