Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01834-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Gonzalez
Defendant
Chauncey Hollis
Plaintiff
Sweeney
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

CHAUNCEY HOLLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-CV-01834-OWW-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(DOC. 17)

Plaintiff Chauncey Hollis (“plaintiff”) is a California state

prisoner proceeding pro se 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 June 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff

did not file a timely Objection to the Findings and

Recommendations.

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

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

1

Case 1:08-cv-01834-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 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

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2010,

are adopted in full;

2) This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint, filed May 26, 2009, against Defendant Sweeney

for violation of the Fourth Amendment;

3) Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Gonzalez for

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment are

DISMISSED without prejudice;

4) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hackett, Hawkins,

Reed and Sampson are DISMISSED without prejudice;

5) Plaintiff’s claims arising at Desert View Modified

Community Correctional Facility and at the California

Institute for Men are DISMISSED without prejudice;

6) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Director of CDCR are

DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; and

7) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims

are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01834-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2