Villa v. Vasquez

Full title: RAYMOND VILLA, Plaintiff, v. P. L. VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 26, 2013

CASE No. 1:10-cv-01148-AWI-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2013)

Opinion

CASE No. 1:10-cv-01148-AWI-MJS (PC)

01-26-2013

RAYMOND VILLA, Plaintiff, v. P. L. VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(ECF No. 28)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

On December 7, 2009, Plaintiff Raymond Villa, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On October 30, 2012, Findings and Recommendations were filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his Fourth Amended Complaint (Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 27) Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Vasquez, Ortega, Riece, Rios, Ohara, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants Vasquez and Ortega, and that Fourth Amended Complaint equal protection claim against Defendants Riece, Rios, Ohara, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 be dismissed with prejudice. (F & R re Cognizable Claims, ECF No. 28.)

The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due within thirty days after service. No party filed an objection 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 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 Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed October 30, 2012, in full;
2. Plaintiff shall proceed on the cognizable claims in his Fourth Amended Complaint for Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement against Defendants Vasquez, Ortega, Riece, Rios, Ohara, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2, and for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection against Defendants Vasquez and Ortega;
3. The Fourth Amended Complaint equal protection claim against Defendants Riece, Rios, Ohara, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 is dismissed with prejudice; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed this case shall remain open.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE