Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06097/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06097-2/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

THOMAS LE’ROY HENNAGAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GAIL LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06097-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 94)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 77)

Plaintiff, Thomas Le’Roy Hennagan, Jr. (“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 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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 13, 2005, plaintiff file a motion to extend time. 

On July 8, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty

(30) days within which to respond. On August 11, 2005, plaintiff

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Case 1:02-cv-06097-AWI -SMS Document 100 Filed 09/01/05 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

Recommendations.

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. Plaintiff has

failed to raise a disputed issue of fact on whether he was

treated differently than other prisoners and there was no

rational basis for the difference in treat or Defendants’ acted

with a discriminatory motive. See Village of Willowbrook v.

Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Freeman v. City of Santa Ana,

68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 13, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants, filed July 14,

2004, is GRANTED; 

3. Supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law

claim on the basis of dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim

will not be exercised; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06097-AWI -SMS Document 100 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2