Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06364/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06364-27/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

KEVIN FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RUIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06364-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 159)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN

DEFENDANTS (Doc. 154)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 144)

Plaintiff, Kevin Fields (“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 June 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed on or before July

25, 2007. On July 16, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On July 25,

Case 1:03-cv-06364-LJO -DLB Document 162 Filed 09/10/07 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

2007, defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

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 June 25, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of

defendants Robertson and Dill, filed April 11, 2007, is GRANTED; 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the retaliation claim

against defendants, Ruiz, Wilbur, Canfield, and Fulbrodt is

GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

 4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December

21, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART; and,

5. This case shall proceed to trial on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claims against defendants Ruiz, Wilbur, Canfield,

Fuhlrodt, and Rabe.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06364-LJO -DLB Document 162 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2