Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396-0/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

ROBERT LEE ROBINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. ATCHUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-01-6396 REC SMS P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS,

AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. 29)

Plaintiff Robert Lee Robins, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis 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 November 17, 2003, 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 days. Plaintiff did not file timely

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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 November 17, 2003, is adopted in full; 

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

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 30 Filed 04/19/05 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

defendants Atchue, Ritchie, De Luna, Sullivan, Winett, Todd, Vaughn, Shiley,

Whitlach, Schmidt, Crowell, Chapman, Grounds, Craven, Cramer, Leonard, Dam,

and Eskardari for retaliation; against defendants Atchue, Ritchie, and White for

excessive force; against defendant De Luna for denial of medical treatment; and

against defendants Atchue, Jelleschitz, Johnson, and Cramer for violation of the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on the strip searches;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment strip search claims, conspiracy claims, verbal

abuse/harassment claims, due process claims, equal protection claims, and Eighth

Amendment exercise claim are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for failure

to state any claims upon which relief may be granted;

4. Defendants Carey and Tyson are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, based

on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against

them; and

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 30 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2