Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00458/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00458-4/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

ANTONIO SHARP,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. D. MORRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00458-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Docs.

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Antonio Sharp (“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 April 16, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed aFindings and Recommendations herein which

was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any Objection was to be filed within thirty

days. Plaintiff filed an Objection on May 5, 2008.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00458-SMM Document 13 Filed 06/11/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 16, 2008, is adopted; 

2. This action shall proceed as one for money damages on Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed July 2, 2007, against Defendants Coronado, McNutt, Hernandez, and

Morrison for use of excessive force;

3. Plaintiff’s due process claim arising out of the loss of his time credits is dismissed,

without prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

4. Plaintiff’s equal protection, inmate appeals process, retaliation, section 1985, and

section 1986 claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted; 

5. Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief are dismissed for failure to state a claim;

6. Defendants Hill, Pilkerton, Jones, and Cano are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure

to state any claim upon which relief may be granted against them; and

7. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00458-SMM Document 13 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 2