Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SHANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01485-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 53)

Plaintiff Raymond Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 302.

On March 15, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which

recommended that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Rumbles for the

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. #53.) The Magistrate Judge

recommended that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourth Amendment claims, due process

claims, equal claims, and claims related to his disciplinary hearings be dismissed. The Magistrate

Judge also recommended that Defendants R. Shannon, T. Hudgins, E. Park, M.C. Voss, James Yates,

J.M. Mattingly, J.L. Scott, L. Fugate, D. Huckaby, R. Lantz, J. Collier, C.O. Redding, S. DeShazo,

E. Zamora, A. Romero, J.A. Perez, I. Villa, and L. Wiest be dismissed from this action. The

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of date on

which they were served. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

1

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 58 Filed 06/04/10 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 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, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. The March 15, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourth Amendment claims, due process claims,

equal claims, and claims related to his disciplinary hearings are DISMISSED; and

3. Defendants R. Shannon, T. Hudgins, E. Park, M.C. Voss, James Yates, J.M.

Mattingly, J.L. Scott, L. Fugate, D. Huckaby, R. Lantz, J. Collier, C.O. Redding, S.

DeShazo, E. Zamora, A. Romero, J.A. Perez, I. Villa, and L. Wiest are DISMISSED

from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 58 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2