Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-27/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

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER STRIKING FILINGS

(Docs. 101 and 102)

On September 13, 2007, United State Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder issued a Findings

and Recommendations recommending that Defendants Wu, Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney’s

Motion seeking dismissal of this action or preclusion of evidence based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve

them with discovery responses in compliance with the Court’s order be denied; and that Plaintiff be

required to serve a proper response to Defendants’ discovery requests within thirty days, and warned

that if he fails to do so, this action may be dismissed as a sanction against him. On January 7, 2008,

the undersigned issued an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations in full. On January

22, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations in which he contends

he served the discovery responses on September 18, 2007. Also on January 22, 2008, Plaintiff filed

a one-hundred seventy-three page self-titled Motion documenting his response to the discovery

requests.

The time in which to file an Objection expired thirty days after the Findings and

Recommendations was filed, and Plaintiff’s attempt to file an Objection after this Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations is clearly untimely. Further, it is unnecessary for Plaintiff to file

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 103 Filed 02/21/08 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

a notice of his compliance and copies of his discovery responses. The Court does not allow the filing

of discovery requests and responses unless there is a matter pending requiring the submission of

those documents. Absent a matter pending on the Court’s docket, discovery is to be conducted

between the parties. In this case, there are no pending matters requiring the submission of Plaintiff’s

discovery responses. Plaintiff was ordered to respond. If Plaintiff responded on September 18,

2007, that is the end of the matter. Defendants apparently found the response satisfactory, as no

motions to compel are pending.

Plaintiff’s Objection to the Findings and Recommendations, and “Motion” documenting his

discovery responses, filed January22, 2008, areHEREBY ORDERED STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 103 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2