Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05006/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05006-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JAMES MICKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. SKEELS, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5006-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE

(Doc. 47)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 32 and 44)

Plaintiff James Mickey (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendant Skeels,

a federal agent, for depriving plaintiff of his personal property without due process of law. 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 November 22, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings andRecommendations herein

which was 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 days. On December 2, 2005, plaintiff

filed an objection, and on December 16, 2005, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objection. 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05006-REC -SMS Document 48 Filed 01/30/06 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

On December 30, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to strike what he improperly treated as defendant’s

untimely reply to his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s contention that defendant filed an untimely reply to the opposition to the motion

for summary judgment is incorrect. Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objection to the

Findings and Recommendations, as defendant is entitled to do, and the response was timely filed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e); Local Rule 72-304(d). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. 

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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s response, filed December 30, 2005, is

DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 22, 2005, is adopted in full;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed June 27, 2005, is GRANTED, thus

concluding this action in its entirety; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for defendant and against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05006-REC -SMS Document 48 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2