Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00661-14/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed three separate 

Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied, 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief be denied. (ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62.) The Findings and Recommendations were served 

on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. On November 

ALBERT J. HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLENDEHEN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, 

DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM 

THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

[ECF Nos. 46, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62,63] 

Case 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 2
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

28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation recommending denial of his 

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 63.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on November 7, 2016 (Doc. Nos. 60, 61, 62)

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 46) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is 

denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 56) is denied, without prejudice; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 55) is denied; and

5. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a response 

to the third amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2