Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835-8/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON G. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF CALFORNIA

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06835 LJO NEW (DLB) P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 34)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIM

Plaintiff, Byron G. Martin (“plaintiff”), a 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 May 2, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 41 Filed 06/22/07 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

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 May 2, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed August 12, 2005, against defendant Padilla aka

Doe 1 for use of excessive physical force, against defendant Rauh

aka Doe 2 for failure to protect plaintiff from harm, and against

defendant Doe 4 for denial of procedural due process; and,

3. Plaintiff’s claim for relief against defendant Doe 3,

the warden, for supervisory liability is DISMISSED, with

prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 41 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2