Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445-3/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

JERRY BREW,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05445-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Jerry Brew (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 July 15, 2005, 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 thirty (30)

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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 15 Filed 08/29/05 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 July 15, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation against

defendant Reynold, and his Eighth Amendment claim against

defendants Eckard and Reynold, are DISMISSED from this action;

and,

3. This action proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

claim against defendants Johnson, Campbell, and Hindt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 15 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2