Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01438-7/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

DONALD C. BACHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O M. MELO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01438-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

CLAIMS, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 32)

Plaintiff Donald C. Bachman (“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 February 27, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file an Objection

to the 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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 27, 2007, is adopted in full;

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01438-OWW -GSA Document 35 Filed 04/20/07 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

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, filed July 17,

2006, against defendants Melo, Guerra, James, and Smith for use of excessive force,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01438-OWW -GSA Document 35 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2