Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01437-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER LANGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT SHARMA,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1437 GEB KJN P

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 Rule 302.

On November 16, 2016, 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 filed objections 

to the findings and recommendations.1 Defendant filed a reply.

 

1 As noted by defendants, in the objections, plaintiff again changed his factual allegations in 

response to the findings and recommendations. A district court “has discretion, but is not 

required,” to consider evidence and claims raised for the first time in the objection to a magistrate 

judge's report. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Brown v. 

Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court must, however, “actually exercise its 

discretion” and not merely accept or deny the new claims. Howell, 231 F.3d at 622. The court 

declines to accept or consider plaintiff’s new factual allegations for the reasons set forth in the 

findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 38 at 5-6.)

Case 2:15-cv-01437-GEB-KJN Document 41 Filed 12/14/16 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 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 November 16, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 34) is

granted;

3. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 4) is revoked; and

4. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty days from the date of this 

order.

Dated: December 13, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01437-GEB-KJN Document 41 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2