Opinion
1:22-cv-00504-ADA-BAM (PC)
10-03-2022
RAPHAEL GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. WRIGHT, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS
(ECF No. 12)
Plaintiff Raphael Graham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 1, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations suggesting that this action proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed July 25, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) That complaint charges Defendant Wright with violating the Fourth Amendment on September 13, 2021 for conducting a strip search with an activated body camera, exposing Plaintiff's genitals on camera, and retaliating against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 12.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other claims be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.
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, 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 1, 2022, (ECF No. 12), are adopted in full'
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed July 25, 2022, (ECF No. 11), against Defendant Wright for conducting a strip search on September 13, 2021 with an activated body camera in violation of the Fourth Amendment and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;
3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.