Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697-7/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

1

 Defendants’ objections are accompanied by a request to file said objections one day

late. The objections were, however, timely filed. The request is therefore denied as unnecessary.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEATON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 General Order No. 262.

On February 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On

February 22, 2006, defendants timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 53 Filed 03/22/06 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

2

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 February 10, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. This court’s September 28, 2005 order dismissing defendant Carver is vacated;

3. Defendants’ April 22, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in

part, as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of excessive force

against defendants Roszko, Carver, Hurtado and Koualczuk is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against defendants

Moreno and Jones is granted due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to any claim against said defendants;

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against defendants

Sahota, Blackford and Van Huesen arising out of the alleged denial of food and water between

November 12, 2003 and November 17, 2003 is granted due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to said claim; and

4. Defendants shall answer the exhausted claims in plaintiff’s complaint within

twenty days from the date of this order.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 53 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2