Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00852-3/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

CHRIS BATTLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0852 LKK DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 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 July 25, 2005, 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 August 24, 2005, the

magistrate judge granted plaintiff an extension of time to September 6, 2005, to place his

objections in the mail to the court and defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff’s September 12, 2005

request for a further extension of time was denied by the magistrate judge in an order filed

September 14, 2005.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00852-LKK -DAD Document 72 Filed 09/20/05 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 deems the documents filed by plaintiff on August 19, 2005, and

September 12, 2005, to be objections to 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, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ October 20, 2004 motion for summary judgment is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: September 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/batt0852.805

Case 2:03-cv-00852-LKK -DAD Document 72 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2