Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05358/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05358-0/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

ERIC MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID WINETT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05358-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 24)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 23)

Plaintiff, Eric Martin (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se 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 March 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

April 15, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05358-LJO -BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/05 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

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 15, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action PROCEED on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed December 27, 2004, against defendants Holcolm and Gracie

for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and defendants Aguirre and

Huerta for denial of access to the courts;

3. Plaintiff’s due process and denial of access to the

courts claims against defendants Johnson and Stainer are

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon

which relief may be granted under section 1983;

4. Plaintiff’s due process, denial of access to the

courts, and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Winett are

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

5. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant

Parker is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and,

6. Defendants Johnson, Stainer, Winett, and Parker are

DISMISSED from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state

any claims upon which relief may be granted against them

under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05358-LJO -BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2