Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00049-1/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

HERMAN T. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

B. VIKJORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00049-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 6)

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL

CLAIMS FROM ACTION

ORDER DENYING ANY AND ALL

PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

ORDER REMANDING ACTION BACK

TO STATE COURT (Doc. 1) 

Plaintiff, Herman T. Johnson, Jr. (“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 24, 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 fifteen (15)

days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 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

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 January 24,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The federal claims are DISMISSED from this action;

3. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT; and,

4. This action is REMANDED back to the state court for

resolution of plaintiff’s state law claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2