Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01551-20/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 

RANDY M. CORDERO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NICK GUZMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM 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 December 23, 2015, 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. 

On January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff twenty-one days to file 

supplemental objections. (ECF No. 96.) On February 22, 2016, plaintiff a motion for extension 

of time to file his supplemental objections and his supplemental objections. (ECF Nos. 97, 98.) 

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff’s supplemental objections are timely. Accordingly, the 

motion for extension of time is denied as unnecessary. 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 100 Filed 03/30/16 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. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 97) is denied as unnecessary; 

2. The findings and recommendations filed December 23, 2015, are adopted in full; and 

 3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 50) is granted as to plaintiff’s claims 

against defendant Parra on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

DATED: March 29, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 100 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 2