Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193-14/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

MICHAEL A. PINKSTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. FIERRO, et al.,

Defendant. 

 /

1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 177)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 161)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Michael A. Pinkston (“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 November 1, 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. On December 11, 2006, February 2, 2007, May 1, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On January 4, 2007 and

March 21, 2007, respectively, the court granted Plaintiff an

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 185 Filed 05/09/07 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

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On May 4,

2007, Plaintiff filed objections 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 November 1,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ (second) motion for summary judgment, filed

July 17, 2006, is GRANTED with respect to the Eighth Amendment

excessive force claim [prolonged exposure to pepper spray]; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 185 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2