Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00696/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00696-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dorian Davis
Plaintiff
Wali At-Taqi Davis
Plaintiff
A. Hedgpeth
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DORIAN DAVIS a.k.a.

WALI AT-TAQI DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HEDGPETH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00696-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 40 and 45)

Plaintiff Dorian Davis a.k.a. Wali At-Taqi Davis 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 January 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The

parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),

1

Case 1:07-cv-00696-LJO -SKO Document 46 Filed 03/10/10 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

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 proper

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 19, 2010,

is adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim for failure to exhaust is DENIED;

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process

claim for failure to exhaust is GRANTED and the claim is

dismissed from this action without prejudice;

4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim for failure to state a claim is DENIED; 

5. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED;

and

6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00696-LJO -SKO Document 46 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2