Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865-21/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

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

ANTHONY D. WAFER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

W. SUESBERRY, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 59, 64)

Plaintiff Anthony D. Wafer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 1, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment against Defendant Suesberry be denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) The

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties appearing in this action and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. On 

April 21, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to April 24, 2014, to file his 

objections. (ECF No. 74.) On April 28, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a second extension of 

time to May 2, 2014, to file his objections. (ECF No. 74.) On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

objections. (ECF No. 79.) 

Plaintiff’s objections are, in essence, a brief in support of the motion for default judgment 

against Defendant Suesberry. Plaintiff does not identify any specific errors or mistakes of law by 

the Magistrate Judge. Instead, Plaintiff reargues the motion for default judgment and attempts to 

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 87 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

provide information supporting his claim for compensatory damages against Defendant 

Suesberry. Defendant Suesberry has filed a motion to set aside the default, which was submitted 

during the pendency of the motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 69.) If the motion to set 

aside is not granted, then Plaintiff may renew his motion for default judgment. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, 

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, issued on April 1, 2014, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant Suesberry is DENIED 

without prejudice; and 

3. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 87 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 2