Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576-6/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

REX CHAPPELL, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O DICKERSON, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:96-cv-05576-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 102)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 99)

Plaintiff, Rex Chappell (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 December 11, 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 twenty (20)

days. The Magistrate Judge granted the parties several

extensions of time to file objections. To date, the parties have

not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 113 Filed 03/14/07 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

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 December 11,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed July 28,

2006, is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim, is DENIED;

b. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DENIED;

c. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff due process claim is GRANTED; and,

3. This action should proceed to trial on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment and Retaliation claims.

4. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 113 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2