Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SAFIDI CAUTHEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERA et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12 cv 01747 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Document 47)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Plaintiff David Safidi Cauthen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 26, 2012.

On August 22, 2013, Defendants Rivera, Mackey, Waddle, Negrete, Northcutt and Arreola 

filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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 February 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. The Findings and Recommendations were 

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations 

were to be filed within thirty days. No party has filed objections.

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/20/14 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 7, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 21) is GRANTED IN PART as to 

Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendants in their official capacity. It is 

DENIED on all other grounds; and

3. Defendants Rivera, Mackey, Waddle, Negrete, Northcutt and Arreola SHALL file a 

responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Defendant King filed an answer to January 14, 2014. 

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 2