Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00413-11/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

BENJIE BROOKINS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-0413-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 55)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 February 13, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On

March 5, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 59 Filed 03/13/08 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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. However, it

is noted that there is a typographical error in the conclusion in

that the Magistrate recommends that defendants’ motion for

summary adjudication of plaintiff’s retaliation claim be granted

which is contrary to the analysis in the body of the order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 13,

2008, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 

3. This matter is referred to the Magistrate for trial

setting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 59 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2