Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD WILLIAM LEVI, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05023-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 77)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT/

ACTION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT

(Doc. 75)

Arnold William Levi (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On January 3, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20) days. To

date, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 79 Filed 02/20/07 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 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 3, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Complaint, and therefore this action, is DISMISSED

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, and for Plaintiff’s failure to

obey the Court’s order of December 5, 2006; and,

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October

30, 2006, is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 79 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 2