Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02183/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02183-1/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

DAVID W. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2183 WBS DAD P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, 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 December 28, 2006, 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. 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. In his objections, plaintiff reveals that he submitted an inmate appeal concerning

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 10 Filed 02/06/07 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

the claims alleged in this action – (1) his desire to be double celled with the inmate of his choice

at California Medical Facility, (2) his desire for prison officials to adopt a policy of not housing

inmates together unless both inmates have signed a compatibility form, (3) his desire for a

transfer to Atascadero State Hospital, and (4) his desire to be allowed to keep certain property in

his cell – only after he received the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s December 20, 2006 motion for injunctive relief is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies before bringing the action.

DATED: February 5, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 10 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2