Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608-15/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

JAMES V. CAICO, No. 2:02-cv-1608-MCE-GGH-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a former 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 March 29, 2006, 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 (20)

days.

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 115 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court observes that in another action filed by 1

Plaintiff in this Court, 2:01-cv-2334-MCE-PAN-P, on April 7,

2006, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal based on

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

2

On April 24, 2006, Plaintiff was granted a thirty-day (30)

extension, in which to file his Objections. Plaintiff has filed

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

The magistrate judge recommended that the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed on January 26, 2006, on behalf of Defendants Roche

and Barron be granted based, in part, on Plaintiff’s failure to

file an opposition. Plaintiff’s Objections, filed May 2, 2006,

cannot be construed as an opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

Plaintiff’s Objections contain a few general facts and no legal

argument.1

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 March 29, 2006,

are adopted in full; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 115 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Defendants Roche and Baron’s January 26, 2006, Motion

for Summary Judgment is granted.

DATED: July 11, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 115 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3