Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06699/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06699-1/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN POHL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN OF CORCORAN STATE

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06699-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Adrian Pohl (“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 April 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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 1:03-cv-06699-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 06/16/05 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 April 14, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. The Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Frietas,

Hall, Hense, Dr. Sanchez, Dotson, and Does 1-2, and the Eighth

Amendment claim against defendant Warden under the theory of

supervisory liability, are DISMISSED from this action; and,

3. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06699-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2