Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541-4/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

On November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time to 1

file objections. Before the court could rule on this request, however, plaintiff filed his objections

on November 16, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time will be granted nunc pro tunc

to the date objections were filed, and the objections will be considered timely.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. RHORABOUGH, No. CIV S-05-1541-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On October 28, 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 ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 23 Filed 03/17/06 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

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. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the October

28, 2005, findings and recommendations is granted, nunc pro tunc, to November 16, 2005;

2. The findings and recommendations filed October 28, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

3. Defendant the California Department of Corrections is dismissed from this

action because it is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, nor is a

“person” under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

DATED: 3/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 23 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2