Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-19/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 126)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

DISMISSING REMAINING

RETALIATION CLAIM, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO HABEAS

EXHAUSTION RULE (Doc. 115)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE

TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST

PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, 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 July 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 127 Filed 10/03/06 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

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. To date,

the parties have not filed any objection 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 July 19, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants Rodriguez and Aguirre’s supplemental motion

for summary judgment, filed May 9, 2006, is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claim against

defendants Rodriguez and Aguirre is DISMISSED, without prejudice,

pursuant to the habeas exhaustion rule; and,

4. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment for defendants

and against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 127 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2