Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422-9/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

BENNY TAPIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05422-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 78)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE TO BE SET FOR TRIAL

(Doc. 75)

Plaintiff Benny Tapia (“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 November 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was 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 days.

On January 3, 2007, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 81 Filed 02/12/07 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

to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s state law mandatory duties claim, filed June

15, 2006, is GRANTED as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion as to plaintiff’s claim for

damages is GRANTED on the ground that plaintiff

failed to exhaust in compliance with the California

Tort Claims Act, and

b. Defendants’ motion as to plaintiff’s claim for

equitable relief is GRANTED on the ground that the

claim is moot; and,

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to

be set for trial on plaintiff’s remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 81 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2