Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00700/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00700-3/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

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00700-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc.

12)

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson (“plaintiff”), a former 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 December 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00700-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/02/07 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

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 December 13,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed March 27, 2006, against defendant Mata on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim arising from defendant Mata’s

repeated refusal/ failure to provide plaintiff with access to his

legal material in R&R;

3. All other retaliation claims and plaintiff’s claims for

denial of access to the courts are DISMISSED from this action,

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted;

4. Plaintiff’s ADA claim against defendant Mata is

DISMISSED from this action, with prejudice, for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

5. All defendants, other than Mata, 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: January 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00700-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2