Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023-8/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD LEVI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HIRSCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 50)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT DOE AND RELATED CLAIMS

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff, Arnold Levi (“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 October 19, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On November 8, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 57 Filed 11/23/05 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

In his objections to the recommendation, plaintiff argues that the Magistrate erred in denying his motion to 1

“supplement” his complaint. However, the denial of that motion is final unless a request for reconsideration by the

district court is filed within ten court days pursuant to Rule 72-303, Local Rules of Practice. Therefore, the court

does not address plaintiff’s contentions.

2

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 19,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Doe, and the

related claims against him, filed August 19, 2005, is GRANTED;

and,

3. Defendant Doe is therefore DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 57 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2