Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-26/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

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00088-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 92)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DISMISSAL OF ACTION OR

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS

A DISCOVERY SANCTION

(Doc. 65)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO SERVE PROPER DISCOVERY

RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Vance Blaine (“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 September 13, 2007, 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 thirty (30)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 100 Filed 01/07/08 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

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 September 13,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants Wu, Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney’s

motion seeking dismissal of this action or preclusion of evidence

based on plaintiff’s failure to serve them with discovery

responses in compliance with the court’s order of January 26,

2007, filed March 9, 2007, is DENIED; and,

3. Plaintiff serve a proper response to defendants’

discovery requests, as detailed in the Findings and

Recommendations, filed September 13, 2007, within thirty (30)

days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is warned

that if he fails to do so, this action will likely be dismissed

as a sanction against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 100 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2