Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00600-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Green
Defendant
T. Lee
Defendant
Navarro
Defendant
Michael Lenoir Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00600-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 15)

Plaintiff Michael Lenoir Smith (“plaintiff”) is a California 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 302.

On May 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and

Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 May 12, 2010, is adopted in full;

2. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed November 3, 2009,

against Defendants Green, Navarro, and T. Lee for retaliation in violation of the First

Amendment;

1

Case 1:09-cv-00600-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 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

3. Defendants Hopkins, Cerda, Jr., and Martinez are dismissed from this action; and

4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims are dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00600-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2