Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02597/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02597-1/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

MARKUS TATUM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2597 FCD KJM P

vs.

T.L. ROSARIO, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights 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 September 1, 2005, 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 twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02597-FCD-KJM Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2005 are adopted in full. 

2. Defendants Pliler, Rosario, Alameida, Haythorne and Hill’s September 1, 2004

motion to dismiss is partially granted and specifically that: 

A. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that all of

plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

with the exceptions of plaintiff’s claims that he was denied visitors by defendants Pliler, Rosario

and Alameida in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that he

was denied outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, between

January 4, 2002 and March 16, 2002.

B. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to the following claims:

i. That defendants Pliler, Rosario and Alameida violated plaintiff’s

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him outdoor exercise between January 4,

2002 and March 16, 2002. 

ii. That defendants Pliler, Rosario and Alameida violated

plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying plaintiff’s visitors between January 4, 2002

and March 16, 2002. 

3. Defendants Haythorne and Hill are dismissed from this action.

4. Defendants Pliler, Rosario and Alameida are ordered to file their answer within

twenty days of the date of this order.

DATED:September 29, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02597-FCD-KJM Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2