Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00560-6/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

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00560-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson (“plaintiff”), a former state

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 March 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection, if any, to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty (30)

days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00560-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 05/25/06 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

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 March 23, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint,

filed April 26, 2005, against Defendants Woodford, Doe 1,

Corcoran, Wu, Kyle, Divine, Brooks, Suryadevara, and Martinez on

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law claims;

3. Plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims are DISMISSED from this

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; and,

4. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as

MOOT in light of plaintiff’s release from prison.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00560-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2