Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00077/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00077-7/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

JOHN MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

VASQUEZ, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00077-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 39)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

DISMISS (Docs. 25 & 32)

Plaintiff, John Martinez (“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 June 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein that recommended Defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

that the parties could file objecitons. To date, plaintiff has

not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00077-AWI-DLB Document 44 Filed 09/18/06 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 June 23, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants Cano, Ortiz, Vasquez, and Terle’s motion to

dismiss, filed October 7, 2005, and defendant Surges’ motion to

dismiss, filed November 2, 2005, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

for lack of standing is DENIED;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

against them for failure to state a claim is GRANTED; and,

c. This SHALL action proceed against defendant

Scribner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00077-AWI-DLB Document 44 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2