Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638-34/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

DEFENDANT WILLIAMS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docs. 70, 124, 132, and 135)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Elonza Jesse Tyler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 20, 2004. This action is

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed March 4, 2005, against Defendants Williams,

Erly, and Smith for allegedly violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 17, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

recommending that Defendant Williams’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and a Findings

and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against

Defendant Smith be denied and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed, with leave to amend,

for failure to state a claim. On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the denial of his motion 

///

1

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 143 Filed 08/12/10 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

and the dismissal of his complaint. Defendants did not file any response to Plaintiff’s objections,

and no party objected to the recommendation to grant Defendant Williams’ motion.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 June 17, 2010, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant Williams’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 1, 2008, is

GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Smith, filed February 19,

2010, is DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

5. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

6. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint; and 1

7. The failure to file a second amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action,

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff may not add new claims or parties to this action. The Court will strike the pleading if it sets forth

1

new claims or parties.

2

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 143 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2