Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05295/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05295-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

BALTAZAR GODOY-AGUIRRE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHARLES GILKEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05295-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 102)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 60-1)

ORDER DENYING ALTERNATE MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

ALTERNATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION AS MOOT

(Docs. 60-2, 60-3)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Baltazar Godoy-Aguirre (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 6, 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

Case 1:03-cv-05295-OWW -LJO Document 106 Filed 11/16/06 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

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On September 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s 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 and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 6,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed February 8, 2006,

is GRANTED;

3. This action is therefore DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and,

4. In light hereof, Defendants’ alternate Motion for

Summary Judgment and alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication 

are DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05295-OWW -LJO Document 106 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2