Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396-12/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

ROBERT LEE ROBINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

L. ATCHUE, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-06396-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 97)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 80)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 84)

Plaintiff Robert Lee Robins, Jr. (“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 May 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was 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 days. 

On May 24, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 103 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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 May 10, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

the available administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a), filed November 30, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendant Atchue stemming

from the strip searches is GRANTED and the claims are DISMISSED,

without prejudice;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

retaliation claim against defendant DeLuna is GRANTED and the

claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

against defendants Sullivan, Winett, Todd, Vaughn, Shiley,

Whitlach, Schmidt, Chapman, Grounds, Craven, Cramer, Dam, and

Eskardari for the retaliatory assessment of a SHU term is GRANTED

and the claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim against

defendants Jelleschitz and Johnson stemming from strip searches

conducted in administrative segregation is DENIED, without

prejudice; and,

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 103 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed December 27,

2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 103 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3