Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01751-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

----oo0oo----

WILLIAM D. FARLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. VIRGA, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:13-1751 WBS KJN P

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff William D. Farley is a state prisoner, 

proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302(c)(17).

On January 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed 

Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) that were served on all 

parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 

Case 2:13-cv-01751-WBS-KJN Document 92 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within fourteen days. 

(F&Rs at 10 (Docket No. 89).) The parties were advised that 

failure to file objections within that time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. (Id.); Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). No party has filed objections to 

the F&Rs. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds the F&Rs to 

be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Findings and Recommendations filed January 28, 

2015, be, and the same hereby are, adopted in 

full;

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be, 

and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to all claims 

brought against defendants Virga and Hamkar;

(3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be, 

and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to those claims 

brought against defendants Miers, Delaney, May, 

Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart 

in their official capacities;

(4) Plaintiff William Farley has twenty days from the 

date this Order is signed to file an amended 

complaint, if he can do so consistent with this 

Order.

(5) If plaintiff files an amended complaint within 

twenty days from the date this Order is signed, 

all defendants shall respond to that amended 

Case 2:13-cv-01751-WBS-KJN Document 92 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

complaint;

(6) If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint 

within twenty days from the date this Order is 

signed, defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, 

Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart shall file 

a response to plaintiff’s First Amendment 

Complaint (Docket No. 11) by addressing those 

claims brought against them in their personal 

capacities.

Dated: February 23, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01751-WBS-KJN Document 92 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 3