Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06113/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06113-0/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

DIRRYE L. CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06113-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 17)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 15)

Plaintiff, Dirrye L. Caldwell (“plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On February 25, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report

and Recommendation herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Report

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

April 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time. 

On April 12, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an additional

thirty (30) days within which to respond. On May 17, 2005, the

Case 1:04-cv-06113-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/13/05 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

2

order served on plaintiff was returned by the United States

Postal Service. On May 18, 2005, the court re-served plaintiff

with same. However, to date, plaintiff has not filed objections

to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

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 Report and Recommendation to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed February 25, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed February 11, 2005, is DENIED.

The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06113-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2