Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02018/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02018-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. HANKS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2018 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 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 Rule 302. 

 On August 14, 2015, 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-one days. ECF No. 29. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations1

 (ECF No. 32) and defendant 

Statti has responded (ECF No. 33). 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

 

1

 Although not filed by the Clerk of the Court until September 25, 2015, plaintiff’s certificate of 

service reflects that the objections were submitted to prison officials for mailing on September 3, 

2015. ECF No. 32 at 29. Under the prison mailbox rule, plaintiff’s objections are timely. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-02018-JAM-AC Document 34 Filed 10/15/15 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

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 August 14, 2015 (ECF No. 29), are adopted in 

full; and 

 2. Defendant Statti’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted and the claims against 

defendant Statti are dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED: October 15, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-02018-JAM-AC Document 34 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 2