Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02560/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02560-8/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

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2560 DFL JFM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 27, 2007, 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. Plaintiff has

filed 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.

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAM -JFM Document 35 Filed 03/20/07 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 27, 2007, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ June 12, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in

part;

3. Plaintiff’s claims of racial discrimination, excessive force, and failure to

protect raised against defendants Whitfield, Knudsen, Chirilla and Soliz are dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit;

4. This action shall proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and pendent

state law negligence claims arising from allegations that defendants Woodford, Kanan, Carey,

Traquina, McIntyre, Kurk, Cheung and Sheehan failed to provide or authorize required dental

work;

5. Defendants Woodford, Kanan, Carey, Traquina, McIntyre, Kurk, Cheung and

Sheehan shall answer, within ten days from the date this order, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

and pendent state law negligence claims arising from their alleged failure to provide or authorize

required dental work; and

6. Plaintiff’s July 24, 2006 motion for Rule 11 sanctions is denied. 

DATED: March 19, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/will2560.805

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAM -JFM Document 35 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2