Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05978/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05978-6/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

HENRY MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05978-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 35)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 28)

Plaintiff, Henry Murray (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se 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 June 27, 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 thirty (30)

days. On July 19, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:02-cv-05978-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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. The

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 27, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that

plaintiff did not exhaust his claims of retaliation

against defendants is GRANTED as to defendants Allen,

Comaites, Lewis, and Terhune only, and DENIED as to

defendant Corley;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the

operations procedure and regulation under which

plaintiff’s property was confiscated were reasonably

related to legitimate penological interests and

therefore is lawful is GRANTED;

4. Defendants’ motion that plaintiff’s claims regarding

the inmate appeal process should be dismissed against

defendants Terhune, Lewis, Comaites, and Allen only is

GRANTED, and DENIED as to defendant Corley;

5. Defendants’ motion that plaintiff’s claims regarding an

unauthorized deprivation of property is not a violation

of rights of the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED; and,

6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims for damages

Case 1:02-cv-05978-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

against defendants in their official capacity is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05978-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 3