Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01932/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01932-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-1932 LKK GGH PS

vs.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On September 16, 2004, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

noting that the court had no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, but granting plaintiff leave to

amend due to his pro se status. After numerous extensions of time to amend and failure on

plaintiff’s part to do so, on April 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed

late objections on July 29, 2005, and August 12, 2005, and they were considered by the

undersigned. Plaintiff explains in his objections that he has been unable to respond to both the

magistrate judge’s order and the findings and recommendations because he has been on constant,

but involuntary, move.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 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

2

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

This appears to be a case where, although the magistrate judge could have no way

of knowing it, the facts do not support a willful or negligent failure to prosecute, but default due

to circumstances over which plaintiff had no control. Accordingly, the court DECLINES to

adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and REMANDS the case to the

magistrate judge to give plaintiff one last chance to comply with the court’s orders.

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K .Karlton 

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2