Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00666-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
El Dorado County Jail
Defendant
Ronald S. Miller
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD S. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL DORADO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-00666-DAD-EFB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THIS 

CASE

(Doc. Nos. 30, 32)

Plaintiff Ronald S. Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought 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 302.

On August 26, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case be granted. (Doc. No. 32 at 2.) 

Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had demonstrated inadvertence and 

excusable neglect justifying relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(1) because plaintiff was unable to prosecute the case without assistance. (Id. at 1.) The 

magistrate judge also noted that plaintiff now has help litigating this action, including filing an 

amended complaint. (Id.)

/////

Case 2:23-cv-00666-DAD-EFB Document 33 Filed 12/03/24 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

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 

2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 

which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 26, 2024 (Doc. No. 32) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 30) is granted;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this case;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file 

either a first amended complaint or a notice of his intent not to do so; and

5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00666-DAD-EFB Document 33 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2