Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157-23/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, No. 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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 General Order No. 262.

On August 25, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days from the date the findings

and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 143 Filed 09/30/09 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

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 August 25, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part, in that plaintiff’s claims arising from

events other than those alleged to have occurred on August 12, 2005, are dismissed, without

prejudice to being raised in separate actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P 18(a), 20(a)(2). This action shall

therefore proceed against defendants Deforest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, and Stone only, on

plaintiff’s claims relating to the August 12, 2005 events; 

3. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is denied as unnecessary;

and,

4. Plaintiff’s December 31, 2008 motion to supplement is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 29, 2009

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 143 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2