Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06597/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06597-1/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

DELBERT PAULINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRISS TODD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6597 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION

 Delbert Paulino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 11, 2006, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to

amend finding that the Complaint stated only a First Amendment claim concerning the hair

grooming policy and religious practice against Defendants Todd and Muth and a claim against

Defendant Bryant for mail interference. However, the Complaint did not state any cognizable

claim for relief against Defendants Wilson, Adkinson, McDill, Johnson, Alvord, Hoppe or

Anastecio. 

On April 28, 2006, Plaintiff informed the Court that he did not wish to file an Amended

Complaint but wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims for relief. 

Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s request, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants

Wilson, Adkinson, McDill, Johnson, Alvord, Hoppe or Anastecio be DISMISSED from the

Case 1:04-cv-06597-LJO -GSA Document 10 Filed 05/15/06 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

action and that the action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Defendants

Todd and Muth and his mail interference claim against Defendant Bryant. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ELEVEN (11) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06597-LJO -GSA Document 10 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2