Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00144/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00144-1/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 The request for extension of time and the certificate of service appended thereto are 1

dated September 24, 2005. The reason for the nine day delay between that date and the date on

which the document was filed in this court is not apparent. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. MACIEL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0144 DFL JFM P

vs.

V. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. 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 September 9, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. The findings and

recommendations specifically provided that no extensions of time would be granted. On October

3, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file objections. After review of the 1

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00144-DFL -JFM Document 51 Filed 11/14/05 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

record herein, and good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file

objections will be denied.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2005 request for an extension of time is denied;

2. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

3. This court finds that plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint contains

no cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and this action shall therefore remain

closed.

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/maci0144.805

Case 2:02-cv-00144-DFL -JFM Document 51 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2