Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717-4/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

LADELL STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06717-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 17)

Plaintiff, Ladell Stephens (“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 September 7, 2005, 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 thirty (30)

days. On September 21, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 12/06/05 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

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. The court is

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s complaint

only after the court has screened the complaint and determined

that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named

defendants. Because the court has not yet screened the

complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 7,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed August

12, 2005, is DENIED as no response is required of defendants at

this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2