Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00257/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00257-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HENRY A. JONES, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

DAVID MACHER, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-0257-OWW-SMS 

ORDER DEEMING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 18) TO BE

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 17)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT THIS ACTION

BE DISMISSED 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis who filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

On April 27, 2005, Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder filed

findings and a recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint without leave to amend because it failed to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff was granted

thirty days within which to file objections. The findings and

recommendation were served on all parties on April 27, 2005.

On May 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed what was entitled “MOTION:

Case 1:05-cv-00257-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/26/05 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

TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER TO RECOMENDATION TO BE DISMISS” (sic).

Review of this documents reveals that it responds to the findings

and recommendation of the Court. Thus, the Plaintiff’s motion to

reconsider is construed as, and IS DEEMED to be, OBJECTIONS to

the findings and recommendations. 

The undersigned has considered the objections and has

determined there is no need to modify the findings and

recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action

because this order terminates the action in its entirety.IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Emm0d6Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00257-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 2