Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00017/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00017-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

EUGENE ISAACSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0017 MCE DAD PS

vs.

SHAWN BERRIGAN, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On March 12, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. Plaintiff has

filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the order and findings and recommendations to be supported by the record

and by proper analysis.

/////

Case 2:09-cv-00017-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 04/05/10 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

2

Plaintiff has included in his objections a motion for an extension of time to file “a

more complete and consice [sic] answer” to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations. (Pl.’s Objections at 2.) Plaintiff has articulated his objections, and the court

has conducted a de novo review of the case. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time of

unspecified length is therefore denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file more complete objections is

denied as unnecessary;

2. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2010 (Doc. No. 22) are

adopted in full;

3. Defendant Bauman’s May 29, 2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7), in which

all other defendants have joined, is granted;

4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

Dated: April 2, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00017-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 2