Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01038-6/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

LUIS GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEGADEO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01038-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Docs. 17 and 21)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Luis Garces (“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 July 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and

Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and

Recommendations on August 14, 2007.

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 July 25, 2007, is adopted in full;

///

Case 1:06-cv-01038-JAT Document 23 Filed 08/23/07 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

2. This shall action proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed March 26, 2007,

against defendants Diguadio and Bott for use of excessive force, and against

defendants Smith, Diguadio, and Bott for failing to protect plaintiff;

3. Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendant Smith and claim based on the

issuance of the RVR, to the extent such claims are even alleged, are dismissed for

failure to state a claim;

4. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01038-JAT Document 23 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2