Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-3/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

 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections was denied by the Magistrate Judge following

plaintiff’s clarification that he wishes to proceed and not file an amended complaint. (Docs. 20-22.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-6554 REC SMS P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

FROM ACTION

(Doc. 16)

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“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 April 14, 2005, theMagistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

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

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.1

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 April 14, 2005, is adopted in full;

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 26 Filed 06/10/05 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

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint filed November 16, 2004, under

section 1983 against defendants Morales, David, Martinez, and Reynoso for use of

excessive physical force based on the incident of June 24, 2003, and against

defendants Morales and David for retaliation;

3. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, due process claim(s), claim based on violation of

state regulations, excessive force claim based on incident on May 2, 2003, and

medical care claim are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; and

4. Defendants Beer, Hammond, Wilson, Rousseau, Dill, Woodford, Scribner, Ortiz,

Yamamoto, Jane Doe, and John Doe are dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to state

any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 26 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2