Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT H. NESBITT JR., No. CIV-S-03-2243 MCE/DAD P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

NEIL WAKABAYSHI, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, an inmate confined in the Solano County Jail, is

proceeding pro se with a 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

General Order No. 262.

On August 17, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. 

///

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 452 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Defendants have filed timely objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 August 17, 2005

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant Cueva’s December 6, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #110) is granted in part and the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice;

3. Defendant Putnam’s December 10, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #116) is granted in part and the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice;

4. Defendant Johnson’s December 10, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #122) is granted in part and the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice;

5. Defendant Gray’s December 15, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #131) is granted in part and the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice;

6. Defendant Eakin’s December 16, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #137) is granted in part, the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice, and claim 8

is dismissed with prejudice;

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 452 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

7. Defendant Cathleen Bidou’s December 16, 2004 motion for

summary judgment (docketed as #143) is granted in part, the

conspiracy allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice,

and claim 8 is dismissed with prejudice;

8. Defendant Wakabayashi’s December 27, 2004 motion for

summary judgment (docketed as #152) is denied;

9. Defendant James’ December 28, 2004 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #160) is granted in part, the conspiracy

allegation in claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice, and claim 3

is dismissed with prejudice;

10. Defendant Davis’ January 7, 2005 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #177) is granted in full, claim 4 is

dismissed with prejudice, and claim 6 is dismissed without

prejudice;

11. Defendant Matt Bidou’s January 7, 2005 motion for

summary judgment (docketed as #184) is granted in part, the

conspiracy allegations in claims 1 are dismissed without

prejudice, claim 6 is dismissed without prejudice, and claims 3

and 8 are dismissed with prejudice; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 452 Filed 09/21/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

12. Defendant Marsh’s January 7, 2005 motion for summary

judgment (docketed as #190) is granted in part, claim 7 is

dismissed with prejudice to the extent that the claim has been

brought against the defendant in his official capacity, and claim

8 is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: September 20, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 452 Filed 09/21/05 Page 4 of 4