Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01646/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01646-23/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

GERALD LEE MILLER, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1646 LKK EFB P

vs.

JANE WOODFORD, 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 Rule 302. 

On January 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a joint order and findings and

recommendations, which was 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-one days

from the date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed a document

styled as an objection to the findings and recommendations. However, the majority of plaintiff’s

arguments pertain to the Magistrate Judge’s orders, rather than to the findings and

recommendations. The court construes these arguments as a request for reconsideration under

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(c).

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 121 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
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

As 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 findings and recommendations

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

As to the order regarding plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Motion to Compel Discovery,” plaintiff’s “Motion[s] for Intervention,” and plaintiff’s “Request

for U.S. Marshal to be Provide[d] with the Present or Last Known Address of Defendant G.

Costra for Service of Summons and Complaint,” the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s

denial of these motions was properly. The court therefore denies plaintiff’s implicit request for

reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2010, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of

Temporary Restraining Order,” Dckt. No. 67, is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment. Petitioner Request for Ex Parte

Hearing Before the Court and Judgment without Further Notice,” Dckt. No. 83, is DENIED; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law causes, Dckt. No. 88, is

GRANTED, and the fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth causes of action in plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint are dismissed; 

6. Insofar as plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations pertain to

the Magistrate Judge’s orders, rather than to the findings and recommendations, the court

construes these objections as a request for reconsideration;

7. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is denied; and

8. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege his compliance with

the California Tort Claims Act, if he can, within 30 days of this order. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 121 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

So ordered.

DATED: March 17, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 121 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3