Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05392/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05392-2/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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05392-OWW-SMS-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 33)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief 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 Rule 72-302.

On May 20, 2005, the Magistrate 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 (30) days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05392-OWW -SMS Document 35 Filed 07/13/05 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 May 20, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed February 23, 2005, only against defendant

Morales on plaintiff’s equal protection claim;

3. Plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant Doe is

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under section 1983; and,

4. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Adams, based on a

theory of supervisory liability, is DISMISSED, with prejudice,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983; and

5. Defendants Doe and Adams are dismissed from this action

based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05392-OWW -SMS Document 35 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2