Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171-22/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-1171 LKK DAD P

vs.

DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, 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 Rule 302.

On March 29, 2013, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

1

 Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations do not contest the magistrate

judge’s reasoning or his recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for “his

expenses in his multiple attempts to locate and serve Defendant Uppal, as well as for the expense

of providing notice by publication.” Pl’s Objs., ECF No. 108, at 1. 

The court will not address Plaintiff’s request for costs in this order. Plaintiff is directed

to file a separate motion for costs before the magistrate judge, in accordance with Eastern

1

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 128 Filed 05/29/13 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

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, 2013, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s request to enter default against defendant Uppal (Doc. No. 90) is

denied.

DATED: May 29, 2013.

District of California Local Rule 292. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 128 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 2