Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01014/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01014-8/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

JAMES REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01014-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff James Reynolds (“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 May 1, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 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 May 1, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint,

filed August 8, 2005, against defendants Landry and Casby on

plaintiff’s excessive force claim;

3. Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against any defendant

other than Landry and Casby, and plaintiff’s retaliation, due

process, and supervisory liability claims are DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

4. Defendants Woodford, Scribner, Poulos, and Hill are

DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claim upon

which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2