Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06572/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06572-0/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

WAYNE PARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL LEWIS, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-02-6572 OWW LJO P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 1 and 68)

Plaintiff Wayne Parks (“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 January 19, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On March 31, 2005, plaintiff

was granted an additional thirty days within which to file objections. Plaintiff did not file timely

objections to the 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 January 19, 2005, is adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed December 9, 2002,

Case 1:02-cv-06572-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 05/19/05 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

against defendants Klarich, Neubarth, and Young for violating the Eighth

Amendment with respect to plaintiff’s medical and dental care; 

3. Plaintiff’s free exercise, equal protection, inmate appeals process, supervisory

liability, ADA, and RLUIPA claims are dismissed from this action, without

prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 

4. Defendants Lewis, Salazar, Ward, Rianda, Villa, Kim, Priolo, Hollis, and Bonilla

are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon

which relief may be granted against them; and

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06572-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2