Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445-7/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. 25)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 18)

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 March 22, 2006, 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 27 Filed 05/12/06 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 March 22, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the action is

GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies with regard to Defendant Hindt, and

DENIED IN PART with regard to the Motion to dismiss on the basis

of failure to state a claim for relief.

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 27 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2