Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437-6/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

MICHAEL L. HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

 /

1:04-cv-05437-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 23)

Plaintiff, Michael L. Hughes (“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 December 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

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

days. On January 3, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 02/16/06 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

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed December 15,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendant Sherman’s motion to dismiss, filed December

8, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Defendant Sherman and

the supervisory liability claim and DENIED IN PART with respect

to the remaining claims and defendants. Defendants shall file an

Answer or other authorized pre-answer motion within the times

allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2