Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-0/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

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-6624 AWI SMS P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS 

(Docs. 4 and 8)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

FILE IN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“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 72-302.

On April 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The parties have not filed timely

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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 April 5, 2005, is adopted in full; 

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 10 Filed 05/11/05 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

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed January 4, 2005, is GRANTED as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s due process claim based on the handling of his inmate appeals is

dismissed, with prejudice; and

b. Plaintiff’s claim based on defendant’s failure to comply with the Armstrong

remedial plan is dismissed, with prejudice; 

3. The Clerk’s Office shall file in plaintiff’s amended complaint, lodged on May 2,

2005; and

4. Defendant is relieved of his obligation to respond to the amended complaint, pending

screening of the complaint in due course by the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 10 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2