Opinion
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING, WITH PREJUDICE, CERTAIN CLAIMS FOUND TO BE NOT COGNIZABLE (ECF No. 40)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mark Anthony Jones ("Plaintiff"), a state inmate, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Co-Plaintiffs Christine Jones and Mark Jones originally filed this action in the Northern District of California. It was then transferred to the Eastern District of California on January 14, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) On September 16, 2008, the Court severed the Co-Plaintiffs' claims and directed the Clerk to open a new action for Christine Jones. (ECF No. 11.) As a result, Mark Jones proceeded in this case (1:08-cv-00069-LJO-GBC), and Christine Jones proceeded in case 1:08-cv-01383-LJO-GBC. The Court ordered each Plaintiff to file amended complaints in the separated cases.
On October 20, 2008, objections to the Court's Severance Order were filed. (ECF No. 16.) On November 7, 2008, the Court issued an Order addressing the objections and affirming the Severance Order. (ECF No. 18.) Then, on September 2, 2009, the Court consolidated the two cases because each involved the same defendants, incident, and allegations. (ECF No. 20.) However, due to the parties' actions, the Court again severed the Co-Plaintiffs' claims on January 31, 2011 with only Plaintiff proceeding in the above captioned case. (ECF No. 38.)
The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state any cognizable claims. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on February 25, 2011. (ECF No. 39.) On March 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of certain claims and Defendants, with prejudice for, again, failing to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 40.) In response, Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Recommendations. (ECF No. 43.)
The matter was referred to a United State Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff proceed on the First Amendment Retaliation Claim against Defendant Couch, and recommending dismissal of all other claims and Defendants found to be not cognizable. (ECF No. 40.) In the Objections, Plaintiff states that he "will make this Objection by showing abusive conduct by Officers Couch and the to unknown" and objects to all other parties being dismissed. (ECF No. 43, p. 3.)
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 Findings and Recommendations, filed March 11, 2011, is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff is to proceed on his First Amendment Retaliation Claim against Defendant Couch;
3. All remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under Section 1983; and
4. Defendants California Department of Corrections, Kathleen Allison, Kenneth Clark, and two Does are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based upon Plaintiff's failure to state cognizable claims against them.
IT IS SO ORDERED.