Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06067/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06067-3/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

MARK LEE STINSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

G. GALAZA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-cv-06067-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 129)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 122)

Plaintiff, Mark Lee Stinson (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 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 72-302.

On January 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 17, 2006, defendants filed a request to extend

time. On February 22, 2006, the court granted defendants until

March 22, 2006, to respond. On March 21, 2006, defendants filed

a second request to extend time. On March 29, 2006, the Court

granted defendants until April 21, 2006 to respond. To date, no

Case 1:00-cv-06067-LJO -DLB Document 141 Filed 05/24/06 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

27

28

2

objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 January 30,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed May 16,

2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06067-LJO -DLB Document 141 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2