Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01285/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01285-5/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

ROBERT LEE ROBINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1285 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION (Doc. 11, 13.) 

 Robert Lee Robins, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On November 9, 2006, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated only a cognizable Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual

claim against Defendants Adams and Silva under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not submit an

Amended Complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only with the cognizable claims

for relief within the allotted time frame, however. Thus, on January 4, 2007, the Court issued

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the action. 

On January 10, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a Notice to the Court of his intent to dismiss all

claims except the Eighth Amendment claim found cognizable by the Court against Defendants

Adams and Silva. Based on this filing and concurrent with these Findings and

Recommendations, the Court issued an Order vacating the previous Findings and

Recommendations to dismiss for failure to comply and also finding service of the Complaint

Case 1:05-cv-01285-GSA Document 15 Filed 01/16/07 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

appropriate. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to forward to Plaintiff the appropriate

documents for service of the Complaint. The Court now RECOMMENDS that those claims that

were found not cognizable against all remaining Defendants be DISMISSED and that the action

proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment against

Defendant Correctional Officers Adams and Silva. 

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 TWENTY (20) 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

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01285-GSA Document 15 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2