Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00473/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00473-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. MACIEL, No. 2:02-cv-0473-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

ANA RAMIREZ-PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No.

262.

On June 16, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations 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 twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 129 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 By Order dated July 31, 2006 and filed August 1, 2006, 1

the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff an additional period of

fifteen (15) days “from the date of” that Order in which to file

and serve objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The

Certificate of Service appended to the Objections and signed by

Plaintiff is dated August 12, 2006. It is apparent from

statements in the Objections and from Exhibit J thereto that the

Objections were not delivered to prison officials for mailing to

the Court until at least August 16, 2006 and, more likely, on or

after August 17, 2006. Although the Objections are likely

untimely even under the rule announced in Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266 (1988), the Court has nonetheless included Plaintiff’s

Objections in its de novo review of the record.

2

After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff has filed

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 June 16, 2006,

are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s April 6, 2006 request to renew his motion to

stay this action is denied;

3. Defendants’ April 7, 2006 Motion to Dismiss is granted;

and

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 129 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

DATED: August 24, 2006

_________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 129 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3