Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MAESHACK, 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 58.)

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HARBINSON

AND MCINTYRE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, BASED ON RES

JUDICATA (Doc. 38.)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS HARBINSON

AND MCINTYRE FROM THIS ACTION

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Robert Maeshack (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 January 25, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

that Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre’s motion to dismiss of May 6, 2009 be granted, and

Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a

claim against him, based on the doctrine of res judicata. On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 61.)

1

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 66 Filed 03/09/10 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 proper

analysis. While the court is not without sympathy to Plaintiff’s medical problems, the court cannot

revisit allegations that have already been fully adjudicated in another action.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

January 25, 2010, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre’s motion to dismiss, filed May 6, 2009, is

GRANTED;

3. Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre are dismissed from this action for

Plaintiff's failure to state any claim against them, based on the doctrine of res

judicata; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of Defendants

Harbinson and McIntyre from this action on the court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 66 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 2