Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003-9/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

MALCOLM ANDRE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIELSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05003-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 117)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 75, 78, 86, 89) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Malcolm Andre Young (“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 November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were 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 (30)

days. On January 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend

time. On January 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiff an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On February

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 122 Filed 03/15/06 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

3, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

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 November 30,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim

against defendants Moor, Ortiz, Walters, and Doser is GRANTED;

and,

3. This action is therefore DISMISSED.

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT in

accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 122 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2