Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06243/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06243-1/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

THOMAS R. GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SGT. B. GRIFFIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06243-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 33)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 31-1)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 31-2)

Thomas R. Gilbert (“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 March 22, 2006, 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 1:02-cv-06243-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 05/25/06 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. In addition,

however, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s allegations concerning

the unauthorized deprivation of property fail to state a

cognizable claim for relief under the Due Process Clause. Hudson

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (unauthorized intentional

deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a

violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available). As such, the

action will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 22, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is

GRANTED;

3. The action is therefore DISMISSED in its entirety, with

prejudice; and,

4. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is therefore

DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06243-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2