Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820-25/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. JORDAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1820 LKK KJM P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 14, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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 by

proper analysis.

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 163 Filed 03/30/07 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 14, 2007, are adopted in

full; and

2. Defendant Rohlfing’s motion to dismiss is denied.

3. Defendants Kaptur and McGuire’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is granted as to the allegations contained in paragraphs 64, 66 and 68 of

the amended complaint.

4. Defendants Eder and McCraw’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

is granted as to the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the amended complaint.

5. Defendants Eder and Cobb’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is

granted as to the allegations contained in paragraphs 21 through 28 of the amended complaint.

6. Defendant Wright’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted as

to the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the amended complaint.

7. Defendants Armoskus and Felker’s motion to dismiss is granted insofar as

they are alleged to have acted in paragraphs 74 and 81.

8. Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed July 26, 2006 is denied in all other

respects.

DATED: March 29, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 163 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2