Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-6/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

On page 24, the findings and recommendations inadvertently refers to the First Amended Complaint instead of the 1

Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 23 at 24, line 1). This case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed

November 13, 2008. (Doc. 16.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP, 1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 23)

D. G. ADAMS, et al., ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS 

AND CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

________________________________/

Eric Charles Rodney K'napp (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 May 7, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

this action proceed on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed November 13, 2008, against

1

Defendants Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Gurrero, Meaders, Johnson, Adams, Cuevas, Tucker, Sherman,

Selvy, and Does 1-5 for retaliating against Plaintiff, and Defendants Motty, Pugliese, Smith,

Guerrero, Cooper, Garcia, Hall, and Does 1-5 for interfering with his right to send mail in violation

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 08/17/09 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

of the First Amendment, and that all remaining claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. (Doc. 23.) On July 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings

and recommendations. (Doc. 28.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on May

7, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed

November 13, 2008, against Defendants Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Gurrero,

Meaders, Johnson, Adams, Cuevas, Tucker, Sherman, Selvy, and Does 1-5 for

retaliating against Plaintiff, and Defendants Motty, Pugliese, Smith, Guerrero,

Cooper, Garcia, Hall, and Does 1-5 for interfering with his right to send mail

in violation of the First Amendment;

3. All of Plaintiff’s claims, other than as found cognizable immediately above,

are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

and

4. Defendants Woodford, Tilton, Burleson, Cate, Clark, Domen, Esparza,

Foulks, Grannis, Hense, Henson, Larios, McCant, Murberger, Odle, Ortiz,

Rollins, Surges, Wan, and Does 6-10 are dismissed from this action based on

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against

them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 2