Maciel v. Ramirez-Palmer

Full title: JAMES D. MACIEL, Plaintiff, v. ANA RAMIREZ-PALMER, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 24, 2006

No. 2:02-cv-0473-MCE-PAN-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:02-cv-0473-MCE-PAN-P.

August 24, 2006

ORDER

MORRISON ENGLAND JR., District Judge

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 June 16, 2006, 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 (20) days. After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.¹

1 By Order dated July 31, 2006 and filed August 1, 2006, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff an additional period of fifteen (15) days "from the date of" that Order in which to file and serve objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The Certificate of Service appended to the Objections and signed by Plaintiff is dated August 12, 2006. It is apparent from statements in the Objections and from Exhibit J thereto that the Objections were not delivered to prison officials for mailing to the Court until at least August 16, 2006 and, more likely, on or after August 17, 2006. Although the Objections are likely untimely even under the rule announced in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the Court has nonetheless included Plaintiff's Objections in its de novo review of the record.

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 June 16, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's April 6, 2006 request to renew his motion to stay this action is denied;

3. Defendants' April 7, 2006 Motion to Dismiss is granted; and

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C).