Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 64, 66)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 302.

On March 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for failure to state a claim be

DENIED, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint based on

qualified immunitybe DENIED without prejudice. TheFindings andRecommendations were served

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

to be filed within fourteen (14) days. More than fourteen (14) days have passed and no objections

have been filed. 

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 undersigned finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 67 Filed 04/17/13 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued March 26, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed July 5, 2012, is

DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is DENIED without

prejudice; and

4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file an

answer to the Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill B9ed48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 67 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 2