Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05884/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05884-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 The United States Postal Service returned the F&R served on plaintiff on March 14, 2005, as

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Inmate gone: Forwarding Time Expired. 

On March 14, 2005, the court re-served plaintiff at 1345 N. Cabrillo Park Drive, #K-16, Santa Ana, CA, 92701.

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL ANTONIO ESPINA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

JESUS MAGALLANES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:04-CV-05884-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 41)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS

Plaintiff Rafael Antonio Espina (“plaintiff”) is proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

apparently pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 1, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations (“F&R”) herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days.1 To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

///

Case 1:04-cv-05884-LJO -LJO Document 18 Filed 05/09/05 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 1, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint

against defendants Harrison, Sabal, Hinz, Spack, Layport,

Andrews, and Buckles only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

claims;2 and,

3. The claims against defendants Magallanes, De La Rocha,

Nault, Golson, Davis, and Royce are DISMISSED, with prejudice, as

barred by the statute of limitations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05884-LJO -LJO Document 18 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2