Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097-17/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

DAVID D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BAKEMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01097-LJO-GSA-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 35)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, David D. Harris (“plaintiff”), a 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 August 23, 2007, 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 thirty (30) days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 38 Filed 10/31/07 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 August 23,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed July 23, 2007, against defendant Bakeman in his

individual capacity on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care

claim arising from the placement of plaintiff in a regular cell

while he was actively bleeding;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bakeman and Yates

arising from defendant Bakeman’s failure to place him into a

particular program, and defendants Bakeman and Yates’ failure to

provide him with help is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

4. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Bakeman in his

official capacity is DISMISSED, with prejudice, as barred by the

Eleventh Amendment; and,

5. Defendant Yates is DISMISSED from this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be

granted against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 38 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2