Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02365/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02365-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM O. BROWN, II, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2365 GEB GGH P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, 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 April 20, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice all parties that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:03-cv-02365-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 06/10/05 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

2

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

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.

On May 4, 2005, plaintiff filed an order for an “ex

parte order of mandate.” Plaintiff alleges that he has had

difficulty in sending out his legal mail. Because the court

orders this action dismissed, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 20,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ January 18, 2005, motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied; defendants’

January 18, 2005, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2005, motion for an “ex parte

order of mandate” is denied.

Dated: June 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:03-cv-02365-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2