Hall v. Cnty. of Fresno

Full title: CURTIS HALL, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 13, 2020

No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC)

07-13-2020

CURTIS HALL, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff Curtis Hall is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 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 April 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel be denied; that this action proceed only on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Fresno County; and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time in which to do so has passed. /////

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 8) is denied, without prejudice;

3. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), only against defendant Fresno County with respect to asserted adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

4. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE