Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02584/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02584-9/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

1

Defendants Saunders and Scarsella opposed plaintiff’s motion, but did not file motions

for summary judgment. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEL TYRONE EDWARD

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2584 ALA P

vs.

S. SCARSELLA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief 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 General Order No. 262. 

On March 2, 2006, the magistrate judge in the above-captioned case

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the motions of

defendants Matthews, Caldero and Correa for summary judgment1

 be granted. The court

reviewed the March 2, 2006, magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and took no issue

with the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. However, the court declined to

adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation with respect to defendants’ motion for summary

Case 2:03-cv-02584-ALA Document 87 Filed 08/03/07 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

2

judgment and remanded the case to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. On December

26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and on March 20, 2007 filed an

amended motion for a preliminary injunction. 

On March 30, 2007, the magistrate judge again recommended that the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment be denied. Additionally the magistrate judge recommended that

defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied and that plaintiff’s requests for a

preliminary injunction also be denied. Copies of these findings and recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notices that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed objections to the

March 30, 2007, findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s March 30, 2007 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 30, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed April 25, 2005 is denied; 

3. Defendants Correa, Caldero and Matthews’s motions for summary judgment

filed on June 10, 2005 are denied; and 

4. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 motion for a preliminary injunction and his

March 20, 2007 amended motion for a preliminary injunction are denied. 

DATED: August 3, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:03-cv-02584-ALA Document 87 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2