Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00642-4/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

JOEL ALATORRE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00642-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 7) AND 

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS

Plaintiff Joel Alatorre (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, 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 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objections to the Findings

and Recommendations, if any, was to be filed within thirty days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:05-cv-00642-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 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

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 31, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

filed May 17, 2005, against Defendants Adams, Rivera, Barba,

Astorga, Rodriguez, Jimenez, Cavillo, Doe I, and Doe II for use

of excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; and,

3. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, Eighth Amendment

medical care claim, due process claim(s), equal protection claim,

denial of access to the courts claim, conspiracy claim, section

1985 claim, and state law tort claims are DISMISSED from

this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00642-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2