Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-4/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

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06624-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“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 Rule 72-302.

On November 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 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

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 November 10,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed October 21, 2005, against defendant Scribner for

acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant

Dill is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted;

4. Defendant Dill is DISMISSED from this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against her;

5. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive

relief are DISMISSED; and,

6. Defendant Scribner file a response to plaintiff’s

second amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2