Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05880/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05880-7/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

JEFFREY M. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05880-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 84)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MARSHALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 72)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOE I AND JANE DOE (AKA

THOMPSON)FROM ACTION

ORDER CONCLUDING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Daniels (“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 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendant Marshall’s motion for

summary judgment be granted and Defendants John Doe I and Jane

Doe (aka Thompson) be dismissed from this action. The Findings

Case 1:02-cv-05880-AWI -SMS Document 89 Filed 07/24/06 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

and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained

notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On June 7,

2006, plaintiff filed an objection 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 entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. In plaintiff’s

objections, plaintiff argues that prison officials had a duty to

comply with his request to mail $5.00 to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California and

forward plaintiff’s mail. As pointed out by the Magistrate

Judge, the problem with plaintiff’s complaint is that plaintiff

has failed to provide evidence that the named defendants were

responsible for not paying the $5.00 or submitting a completed in

forma pauperis action to the Northern District. There can be no

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative

link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v.

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Thus, plaintiff’s objections do

not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 5, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

Case 1:02-cv-05880-AWI -SMS Document 89 Filed 07/24/06 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

2. Defendant Marshall’s motion for summary judgment, filed

October 27, 2005, is GRANTED; and,

3. Defendants John Doe I and Jane Doe (aka Thompson) are

DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s failure to timely obtain their

true identities and amend his complaint to name them, thus

CONCLUDING this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05880-AWI -SMS Document 89 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 3