Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538-2/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 The Findings and Recommendations was re-served on plaintiff on August 1

1, 2005, following plaintiff’s notice of change of address.

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-06538-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 87)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 64)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson (“plaintiff”), a former 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 July 5, 2005, 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 were to be

filed within thirty (30) days. To date, the parties have not 1

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 94 Filed 09/22/05 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

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 July 5, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted, filed December 20, 2004,

is DENIED; and,

3. Defendants shall FILE a response to plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, filed January 6, 2004, within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 94 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2