Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187-9/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PAROLE AGENT MOUNTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 58)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO RESPOND TO THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 March 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

April 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On May

17, 2006, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty (30)

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 67 Filed 08/09/06 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

days within which to respond. To date, plaintiff has not filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

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 March 13, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed only against defendants Mounts,

Worely, and Gipson on the Fourth Amendment and Retaliation

claims;

3. All other claims are DISMISSED; and,

4. Defendants respond to the third amended complaint

within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 67 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2