Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-10/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

MOHAMED ABDALLA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M.C. KRAMER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05453-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 25, 26)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ONLY

Plaintiff, Mohamed Abdalla (“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 Rule 72-302.

On November 19, 2002, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff. On

November 26, 2002, the court filed an Addendum to the Findings

and Recommendations which contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within twenty (20) days therefrom. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 102 Filed 04/11/06 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

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 19,

2002, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s eighth amendment

claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need

against defendants Sydenstricker, Rexin, Witwer, Cammiso, Daly,

and Bird;

3. Plaintiff’s due process claim is DISMISSED for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

4. Defendants Howard and Kramer are DISMISSED from this

action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 102 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2