Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAJ CHRISTOPHER GUPTA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-1095 GEB GGH P

vs.

C.A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a 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 General Order No. 262.

On July 7, 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. 

Both parties have filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 153 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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.

On July 21, 2005, defendants filed a request for

extension of time to file their objections. On July 25, 2005,

defendants filed timely objections. Accordingly, the July 21,

2005, request for extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ July 21, 2005, request for extension of

time to file objections is denied as unnecessary;

2. The findings and recommendations filed July 7, 2005

are adopted in full; 

3 Defendants’ March 10, 2005, summary judgment motion

is granted as to all defendants for plaintiff’s claim that he was

denied exercise from January 1999 to January 2000; defendants’

summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s claim that he was

denied exercise following January 2000; defendants’ summary

judgment motion is denied as to the claim that plaintiff failed

to link defendants to the alleged deprivation; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 153 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Defendants Farris, Briddle, Coe, Cook, Singletary

and Beagle are granted summary judgment sua sponte for all

purposes.

Dated: August 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 153 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 3