Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00173-14/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

DAVID K. LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00173-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 66)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 58)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

AGAINST PLAINTIFF

ORDER CONCLUDING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff, David K. Lewis (“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 January 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 11, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00173-LJO -DLB Document 68 Filed 03/07/08 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

2

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 24,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed April

30, 2007, is DENIED on the grounds that plaintiff received due

process in connection with the confiscation of his television,

but nevertheless GRANTED on the grounds that plaintiff previously

litigated this claim and judgment has been entered against him;

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of

defendants and against plaintiff; and,

4. This action is therefore CONCLUDED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00173-LJO -DLB Document 68 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2