Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-10/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

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05108-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DISREGARDING OBJECTION TO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AS FRIVOLOUS

(Doc. 84)

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2006, the undersigned

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending defendant Vigil’s motion to dismiss be

denied, and on August 28, 2006, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger issued an order adopting the

Findings and Recommendations in full. (Doc. 73, 80.) In the order, Judge Wanger noted that neither

party had filed timely objections. (Doc. 80.) On November 3, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to

Judge Wanger’s order on the ground that he timely presented objections to the Findings and

Recommendations on August 9, 2006. (Doc. 84.) 

First, objections to the Findings and Recommendations were due on or before August 14,

2006. Doc. 73, 4:5-6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). At no time prior to that date or after that date did the

Court receive objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Judge Wanger did not issue his

order until August 28, 2006. Thus, if an objection had been filed, the Court would likely have

reviewed it, even if it was untimely. A review of plaintiff’s three filings received on August 15, 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 02/06/07 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

2006, and a review of plaintiff’s exhibits attached to the instant objection do not reveal an objection

to the Findings and Recommendations. 

Second, the Findings and Recommendations recommended defendant’s motion to dismiss

be denied. Thus, the Court’s ruling was favorable to plaintiff. The Court can discern no basis for

an objection by plaintiff to the Findings and Recommendations and plaintiff has not articulated one

in his objection filed on November 3, 2006. Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiff’s objection to be

frivolous and it is HEREBY ORDERED DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 86 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2