Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00916-2/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

 Plaintiff’s objections were filed on January 23, 2006. The Supreme Court has held that

the situation of pro se prisoners seeking to meet court deadlines is unique and therefore a

document may be "filed" on the date that it is given by an inmate to prison authorities for

mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72, 275 (1988). Plaintiff’s proof of service

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJIE D. BROOKINS,

Plaintiff, 2:03-cv-0916-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. 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 November 29, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

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

December 27, 2005, plaintiff was granted until January 18, 2006, in which to file his objections. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

Case 2:03-cv-00916-GEB -JFM Document 106 Filed 03/13/06 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

indicates he gave his objections to prison authorities for mailing on January 18, 2006. Thus,

plaintiff’s objections were timely. 

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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

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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 29, 2005, are adopted in

full. 

2. Defendants’ April 26, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted; and

4. This action is dismissed.

Dated: March 10, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00916-GEB -JFM Document 106 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2