From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 15, 2013
Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB

07-15-2013

HARVEY CURTIS BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. YATES, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMENDATIONS


ECF NO. 61

On April 9, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it stated some cognizable claims. (ECF No. 54.) The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims or to inform the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the Court and consents to the dismissal of the non-cognizable claims. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff informed the Court that he wishes to proceed solely on the claims found to be cognizable in the Court's screening order. (ECF No. 59.) On June 5, 2013, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's non-cognizable claims be dismissed from this action, which include Plaintiff's state law claims, claims for equitable relief and claims against Defendants James A. Yates. (ECF No. 61.)

The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Neither party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 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 dated June 5, 2013 are ADOPTED IN FULL (ECF No. 61);
2. Plaintiff's state law claims, claims for equitable relief and claims against Defendant James A. Yates are DISMISSED; and
3. This action shall proceed solely against Defendant Unidentified Correctional Officer Jane Doe #1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Baker v. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 15, 2013
Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Baker v. Yates

Case Details

Full title:HARVEY CURTIS BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. YATES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 15, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2013)