Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-52/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGLER,

Defendant.

No. 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 

(Doc. Nos. 169, 173, 174, 187)

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which he commenced on 

October 1, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On April 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 

recommending that a declaration filed by plaintiff in this action be stricken, and the Clerk of the 

Court be directed to file that document as a new civil action, and that plaintiff’s motion to file an 

amended complaint be denied. (Doc. No. 187.) Those findings and recommendations were 

served on the parties and contained notice that objections to the findings and recommendations 

were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. No. 187.) Plaintiff filed objections in which he 

/////

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 211 Filed 09/14/16 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

reasserts many of the arguments he previously raised before the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 

194.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 legal analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The April 7, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 187) are adopted in full;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike plaintiff’s declaration (Doc. No. 169) from 

this case and to file it as a complaint in an entirely new civil action on plaintiff’s 

behalf;

3. Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 174), filed March 7, 2016, is 

denied; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 

173), lodged on March 7, 2016, from the record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 211 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2