Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541-8/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

Plaintiff originally names as defendants the California Department of Corrections 1

(now the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, “CDCR”) and Tome Carey. 

On March 17, 2006, the court issued an order dismissing CDCR as a defendant because it is

immune and not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of the Court has

terminated CDCR as a defendant. This action proceeds against Tome Carey as the sole

defendant.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. RHORABOUGH, No. CIV S-05-1541-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

TOM CAREY,1

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On August 18, 2006, 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 ten days. Plaintiff has filed

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 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

2

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 18, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 12) is denied.

Dated: 9/27/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2