Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324-7/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 Defendant’s objection filed on March 13, 2006, was not timely. Objections were due on or before March 1

8, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD VARELLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-03-6324-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 58 and 33)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE

A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 16) 

Plaintiff Edward Varella (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 February 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party filed a timely

objection.1

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 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 60 Filed 03/16/06 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

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 6, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. Defendant Beltran’s motion to dismiss, filed March 18, 2005, is DENIED as follows:

a. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted is DENIED;

b. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as barred by the statute of

limitations is DENIED; and

c. Defendant’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED;

and

3. Defendant Beltran shall file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 60 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2