Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05783/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05783-1/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

ANTOLIN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R.A. CORTEZ,

Defendant. 

 /

1:01-cv-05783-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20)

ORDER DISMISSING [FIRST]

AMENDED COMPLAINT/ACTION

(Doc. 17)

Plaintiff, Antolin Andrews (“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 20, 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 May 4, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the Findings

and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:01-cv-05783-OWW-DLB Document 24 Filed 07/31/06 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

§ 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 March 20, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The [first] amended complaint, filed May 24, 2004, is

DISMISSED in its entirety, without leave to amend, as plaintiff

was previously granted leave to amend and was unable to cure the

deficiencies identified; and,

3. This action is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05783-OWW-DLB Document 24 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2