Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06756/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06756-1/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

ROBERT LEE QUACKENBUSH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JANET TENNISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06756-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Robert Lee Tennison (“plaintiff”), a former state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

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 Rule 72-302.

On November 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06756-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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 November 10,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim

against defendant Tennison is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

b. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant

Tennison, based on the 2005 inmate appeal and response thereto,

is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust

prior to filing suit;

c. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant

Tennison, based on the 2004 appeal and response thereto, is

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted;

d. Plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant

Tennison is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted;

e. Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim against

defendant Tennison is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

//

/

Case 1:04-cv-06756-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

f. Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against

defendants Kramer, Clay, and Brown is DISMISSED, with prejudice,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06756-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3