Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00900/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00900-5/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

FRANK VALENZUELA, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0900 FCD DAD P

vs.

C. SMITH, M.D., 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 February 16, 2006, 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 March

15, 2006, the court received plaintiff’s request for a lengthy extension of time to file objections to

the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff cites the anticipated volume of his objections and a

pending state habeas proceeding, although he does not state that he has an imminent deadline in

the latter litigation.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 03/22/06 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

2

The court does not find good cause to extend plaintiff’s time to file objections to

the findings and recommendations. In the interests of justice, however, the court will construe

plaintiff’s filing as stating objections to all of the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations.

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

304, the 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. The findings and recommendations filed February 16, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ July 18, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed. 

DATED:March 21, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2