Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0537 FCD GGH P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has separately issued an order addressing the third amended

complaint filed July 12, 2007. The court found that the third amended complaint stated a

colorable Equal Protection claim against defendants Khoury, Mitchell, Schwartz, Grannis,

Pearson, Tilton and Kernan. The court also found that the third amended complaint stated a

colorable retaliation claim against defendant Baker. For the reasons discussed in that order, the

court now recommends dismissal of the remaining claims contained in the third amended

complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims contained in the

third amended complaint filed July 12, 2007, but for the Equal Protection claims against

defendants Khoury, Mitchell, Schwartz, Grannis, Pearson, Tilton and Kernan, and the retaliation

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 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

2

claim against defendant Baker, be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/8/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

will537.dis

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2