Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01578/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01578-22/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

U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY VICTORY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01578-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 43, 44, 49, 65)

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Victory (“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

302.

On September 16, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to the parties that any objection

to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Neither party filed a

timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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.

1

Case 1:05-cv-01578-LJO -DLB Document 84 Filed 01/28/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 16, 2009, is adopted in full;

2. Defendant Neubarth’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed August

22, 2008, is GRANTED in part with regards to injunctive relief and DENIED in

party with regards to qualified immunity;

3. Defendants Ortiz, Bresler, Smith, and Barber’s motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, filed August 22, 2008, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part as stated in the September 16, 2009 Findings and

Recommendations; and

4. Defendants Kushner, Salazar, and Sacks’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, filed September 18, 2008, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part as stated in the September 16, 2009 Findings and

Recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01578-LJO -DLB Document 84 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2