Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801-3/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

JESUS CEBALLOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FOUCH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05801-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 30)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 29)

Plaintiff, Jesus Ceballos (“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 14, 2005, 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 within thirty (30)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/16/05 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. Plaintiff’s 

verified complaint places in dispute the need for application of 

force and whether the amount of force used was excessive and for

the purpose of inflicting pain and injury. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 14, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed January

14, 2005, is DENIED; and,

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge

for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2