Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00227-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD J. CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERIFF MARK WIMBISH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00227-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 9)

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ACTION

Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On December 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within eleven (11)

days. On January 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed Objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00227-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 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

27

28

2

//

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds dismissal for lack of prosecution

not warranted at this time. Plaintiff states in his objections

that he has maintained a correct address with this court, and

Plaintiff believes that mail room workers returned the court’s

orders to the court by mistake. Because Plaintiff has contacted

the court and stated a desire to proceed with this action, the

court will not dismiss this action at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court declines to adopt the Findings and

Recommendation, filed December 20, 2006, in light of the

objections, and,

2. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00227-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2