Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05294/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05294-0/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

PATRICK FRANCIS CUMMINGS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. ADAMS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05294-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 52)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 31)

Plaintiff, Patrick Francis Cummings (“plaintiff”), is a

state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 March 9, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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 (30)

days. On March 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to extend

time. On April 6, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On April

22, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05294-DLB Document 59 Filed 05/19/05 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

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 March 9, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary

judgment, filed October 13, 2004, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fifth,

sixth, and seventh claims for failure to exhaust the prison

grievance process is GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s first and second claims and fourth through seventh

claims for failure to file within the applicable statute of

limitations is DENIED;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s first claim is GRANTED;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s third claim is DENIED; and,

e. This case PROCEED on plaintiff’s second, third,

and fourth claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05294-DLB Document 59 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2