Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02276-3/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

MICHAEL ANGELO LENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED FOULK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2276 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s “objections” to the Magistrate 

Judge’s order issued May 11, 2016. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.1) Plaintiff states therein that he objects to 

the Magistrate Judge’s dismissal without prejudice of his complaint. 

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On May 11, 

2016, the previously-assigned Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and gave him 

thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17 at 8.) The Magistrate Judge warned 

Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the order would result in 

a recommendation that his action be dismissed without prejudice. 

////

 

1

Plaintiff filed “objections” on June 10, 2016 and June 20, 2016. The filings appear to be 

identical. 

Case 2:15-cv-02276-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 12/27/16 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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to a magistrate judge’s 

ruling on a pretrial matter within fourteen days of service of the magistrate judge’s order. The 

district court may set aside all or part of that order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

See also E.D. Cal. R. 303. Because Plaintiff filed his objections more than fourteen days after 

service of the Magistrate Judge’s order, they are untimely. In addition, the Court finds the 

Magistrate Judge’s May 11, 2016 order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections filed June 10 and June 20, 2016 (ECF Nos. 22 and 23) are 

denied; and

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that complies with the May 11, 2016, order if he wishes to proceed with this 

action. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a proper amended complaint in a 

timely manner will result in dismissal of this action.

Dated: December 26, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02276-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 2