Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02385/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02385-0/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

 Plaintiff filed a request for an extension on April 21, 2005, well after the deadline for 1

filing objections had passed. The request makes reference to additional evidence but does not

indicate that plaintiff intends to file objections or an amended complaint in compliance with the

February 15, 2005 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s request for an extension is denied.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE R. WOLFF,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2385 DFL GGH P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 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 15, 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. Plaintiff was re-served

with this document on April 27, 2005, to his current address. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:04-cv-02385-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/24/05 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 15, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/23/2005 

 /s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/wolf2385.800

Case 2:04-cv-02385-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2