Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05634/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05634-3/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

JOHN A. GAVINO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. PAPINPUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05634-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 29)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 21)

Plaintiff John A. Gavino (“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 May 9, 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 (30)

days. On June 1, 2005, defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05634-LJO -SMS Document 34 Filed 07/27/05 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

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 May 9, 2005, is

ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed December 23, 2004,

is DENIED as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies is

DENIED;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted is DENIED; and,

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim against

defendant Davis on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED; and

3. Defendants shall file an answer to plaintiff’s

complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05634-LJO -SMS Document 34 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 2