Collier v. Dreher

Full title: WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR., Plaintiff, v. J. DREHER, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 18, 2012

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00270-LJO-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00270-LJO-GBC (PC)

12-18-2012

WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR., Plaintiff, v. J. DREHER, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 15)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff William H. Collier, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 14, 2011. Doc. 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. On October 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that stated a cognizable Due Process claim and access to courts claim against Defendant J. Dreher stemming from intentionally falsifying a document relied upon in determining the length of Plaintiff's prison sentence and preventing Plaintiff to mail an objection in another action which led to the action being dismissed. Doc. 13.

The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either address the shortcomings of the complaint through amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims. Doc. 13. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff stated that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and gave notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims against Defendant J. Dreher. Doc. 14. On November 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein where the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action proceed against Defendant J. Dreher on Due Process claim and access to courts claims and that all remaining claims and Defendants: 1) H.S. Rios, Jr. (Warden at USPA); 2) Regional Director; 3) Paul R. A. Howard (Parole Commission); and 4) General Counsel, be dismissed from this action. Doc. 15. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

II. Conclusion and Order

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. The Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. This action proceed against Defendant J. Dreher on Due Process claim and access to courts claims; and
2. All remaining claims and Defendants: 1) H.S. Rios, Jr. (Warden at USPA); 2) Regional Director; 3) Paul R. A. Howard (Parole Commission); and 4) General Counsel, are dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE