Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06139/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06139-2/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

DONALD R. LEACH, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

TOM CAREY, T. DREW, D.

SCHROEDER, and HAWS,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 104)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 99)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

SCHEDULING

Plaintiff, Donald R. Leach (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se 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 January 31, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 6, 2008, defendants filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendation. On February 27, 2008, plaintiff

Case 1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA Document 108 Filed 03/06/08 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

filed an opposition to defendants’ objections. On March 4, 2008,

defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition.

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 31,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’motion for summary judgment, filed April 26,

2007, is DENIED; and

3. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge

for further scheduling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA Document 108 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2