Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01375-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK SILLMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-1375 FCD GGH P

vs.

C/O JOHNS, 

Defendant. 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 General Order No. 262.

On July 27, 2005, the magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ summary

judgment motion be granted based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion. In the alternative,

the magistrate judge found that defendants’ motion had merit. The findings and

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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

On October 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “plaintiff’s notice of

change of address and objections to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” The court

construes this unverified document to contain objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Case 2:01-cv-01375-FCD-GGH Document 74 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

In this document, plaintiff suggests that he was unable to file timely objections because he

recently moved. Accordingly, the court will deem the objections to be timely filed. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s April 28, 2005, motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) is denied; and

3. Defendant’s April 28, 2005, motion for summary judgment is granted.

DATED:October 12, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-01375-FCD-GGH Document 74 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2