Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-20/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

ANDREW LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05595-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 120)

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Docs. 81, 87)

Plaintiff, Andrew Lopez (“plaintiff”), is 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 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 7, 2007, both plaintiff and defendant filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 126 Filed 03/13/07 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 January 23,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed June 6,

2006, is DENIED;

3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, filed

June 16, 2006, is DENIED; and,

4. This matter proceed to trial on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim against defendant Yale.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 126 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2