Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06173/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06173-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME MARKAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

B. YEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06173-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 74)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 68)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 63)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Jerome Markay (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 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 72-302.

On December 23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On January 23, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:02-cv-06173-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 December 23,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed October

6, 2005, is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed October

4, 2005, is GRANTED in full; and,

4. This action is therefore DISMISSED. This Order

concludes the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06173-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2