Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06467/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06467-3/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

WILMA KILPATRICK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AUGUSTINE C. MEKKAM,

Defendant. 

 /

1:02-cv-06467-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 41)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 34) AND DIRECTING CLERK

TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, Wilma Kilpatrick (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner 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 December 23, 2005, 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 January 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend

Case 1:02-cv-06467-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 03/21/06 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

time to file objections. On February 2, 2006, defendant filed

opposition to plaintiff’s request for extension of time. On

March 6, 2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for extension

of time.

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 December 23,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed

September 8, 2005, is GRANTED; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06467-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2