Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-6/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

KAVIN RHODES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. ROBINSON, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 94)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

Kavin Rhodes, 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 Rule 72-302.

On February 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on Plaintiff and

which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 28, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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 Recommendations filed February 12,

2007 are adopted in full;

2. Claims Thirteen through Thirty-Three of plaintiff’s

second amended complaint are dismissed without

prejudiced for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed May 11,

2006, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of

plaintiff’s First Claim for retaliation against

defendant Robinson; Eighth Claim for retaliation

against defendants Robinson and Blevins; and

Eleventh Claim for retaliation against defendants

Tidwell, Pazo and Robertson, is DENIED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of

plaintiff’s First Claim for retaliation against

defendant Nelson; Second Claim for retaliation

against defendant Blevins; Sixth Claim for

retaliation against defendant Lopez; and Ninth

Claim for retaliation against defendant Huebner,

is GRANTED; and

4. This case shall proceed on plaintiff’s First Claim for

retaliation against defendant Robinson, Eighth Claim

for retaliation against defendants Robinson and Blevins

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

and Eleventh Claim for retaliation against defendants

Tidwell, Pazo and Robertson as well as plaintiff’s

Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth and Twelfth Claims

for retaliation which were not specifically addressed

in defendants’ motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 3