Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01850/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01850-8/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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AT DOCKET 139 - 1

2:96-CV-1850-RRB-EFB P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:96-CV-1850-RRB-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff James H. Fisher (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed the above captioned 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 20, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 146) 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 has filed Objections to the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket 147.

JAMES H. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:96-cv-01850-RRB-EFB Document 148 Filed 10/03/07 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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AT DOCKET 139 - 2

2:96-CV-1850-RRB-EFB P

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes; and, in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the

same, the court finds the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations

(Docket 146) to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Moreover, the result would be the same whether treated as a motion

for reconsideration or a renewed motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations at Docket 146,

filed on August 20, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ September 28, 2006, Motion to Dismiss at

Docket 139 is GRANTED; and

3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01850-RRB-EFB Document 148 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2