Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06148/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06148-1/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

SHADID AL-BARR aka

DEWAYNE X. HARMON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GAIL LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06148-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 43)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 35)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 41)

Plaintiff, Shadid Al-Barr aka Dewayne X. Harmon

(“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 August 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was 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 12, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Case 1:03-cv-06148-LJO -SMS Document 45 Filed 10/12/05 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

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 August 26,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed March

28, 2005, is DENIED on the ground that plaintiff exhausted; and,

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed May 16,

2005, is DENIED on the ground that it is procedurally deficient.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06148-LJO -SMS Document 45 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2