Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02064/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02064-1/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

PAUL WINFIELD, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2064 GEB GGH P

vs.

DAREL KATCHER, 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 April 22, 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 twenty days. 

Case 2:03-cv-02064-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/24/05 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

1Within the objections, in an apparent last ditch attempt to

rectify some of the glaring and repeated defects of his prior

filings, plaintiff continues to attempt to sue a party immune

from suit, and, in an action predicated on an Eighth Amendment

claim of cruel and unusual punishment for forced injections of a

psychotropic drug, does not seek injunctive relief, i.e.,

cessation of the injections, but only money damages, which seems

odd given the nature of his claims. 

2

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1 

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 22,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s repeated

failure to state a claim. 

Dated: June 23, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02064-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2