Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00972/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00972-7/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

RUSSELL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00972-OWW-GSA-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 23)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Russell Martin (“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 October 4, 2007, 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 1:06-cv-00972-GMS Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 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

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 October 4,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed March 26, 2007, against defendants Uzzle and Shiefelbien

for use of excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims

are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted;

4. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim arising from defendant

Slankard’s threat, retaliation claim arising from defendant

Cribb’s destruction of a report, and retaliation claims

against defendants Alipaz and Bryant are DISMISSED from this

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

granted;

5. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Cribb

and Doe defendants arising out of the planting of the razor

blades and issuance of the Rules Violation Report is DISMISSED,

without prejudice, as barred by the habeas exhaustion rule;

6. Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief are DISMISSED;

and,

//

Case 1:06-cv-00972-GMS Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 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

27

28

3

7. Defendants Bryant, Cribb, Slankard, and Alipaz are

DISMISSED from this action for failure to state any claims upon

which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00972-GMS Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3