Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00447-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

JOSEPH PUCKETT, )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

JUDGE JONES, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00447-REC-SMS 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED (DOC. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION AND

DIRECTING THE CLERK ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with this action; when the

initial complaint was filed, Plaintiff was a federal prisoner.

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 May 27, 2005, the Court filed findings and a

recommendation to dismiss the action with prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief should be

granted. The findings and recommendation were served on Plaintiff

by mail on the same date and contained notice that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On June 6,

2005, the findings and recommendation were returned with the

Case 1:05-cv-00447-REC -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/04/05 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

27

28

2

notation that Plaintiff was out of custody. The findings and

recommendation were reserved on June 9, 2005, on Plaintiff at the

out-of-custody address listed on the docket. On June 17, 2005,

Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections; a

thirty-day extension of time was granted on June 24, 2005, and

the order granting the extension was served on the same date.

Thirty days after the date of service of the order have passed,

and no party has filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed May 27, 2005, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to enter judgment for

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00447-REC -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2