Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02313/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02313-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On July 5, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On August 15, 2007,

plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file objections. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

However, on September 12, 2007, plaintiff filed a second request for extension of

time. Plaintiff contends he has had difficulty getting the right legal papers to file with the court

and needs additional time to obtain a “possible sworn affidavit from [a] prospective witness.” 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 84 Filed 09/18/07 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

(September 12, 2007 Request at 2.) However, plaintiff does not identify the witness nor explain

what this prospective witness would say or how the proposed testimony would demonstrate

defendant Roll’s culpability herein. (See July 5, 2007 Findings and Recommendations at 8.) 

Thus, plaintiff’s request for extension of time will be denied. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 12, 2007 request for extension of time is denied;

2. The findings and recommendations filed July 5, 2007 are adopted in full; and 

3. Defendant’s June 26, 2006 motion for summary judgment is granted. 

DATED: September 17, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 84 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 2