Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321-10/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

JOSH THOMAS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOAIZA, M.D., 

Defendant. 

 /

1:03-cv-05321-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 54)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Doc. 41)

Plaintiff, Josh Thomas Miller (“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 February 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

//

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 58 Filed 03/15/06 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 In the interim, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 21, 2006 (Doc. 55). 1

2

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 10,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed

November 14, 2005, is DENIED; and,

3. Defendant is GRANTED leave to file the appropriate

motion nunc pro tunc.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 58 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2