Hubbard v. Larsen

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Dismissing First Amended Complaint; ORDER Dismissing 1983 Claim; ORDER Directing Clerk to issue Social Security Scheduling Order, etc. signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/3/08. Service Documents due by 3/10/2008. (Enclosed: Copy of First Amended Complaint Doc. 7) (Attachments: # 1 USM Forms and Instructions, # 2 Summons)(Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
(SS) Hubbard v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 12 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 Plaintiff, Richard Hubbard ("plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil action in this Court. The matter has been referred to a United vs. ALJ MR. CHRISTOPHER LARSEN OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. / ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEDULING ORDER, ETC. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 7) ORDER DISMISSING 1983 CLAIM RICHARD HUBBARD, Plaintiff, 1:07-cv-01225-LJO-SMS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 8) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 72-302(c)(15) and 72-303. On December 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On January 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to extend 1 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 time. On January 16, 2008, the court granted plaintiff an On January additional twenty (20) days within which to respond. 28, 2008, plaintiff filed a request to dismiss the extension of time as not necessary, stated he had no objections thereto, and requested that his first amended complaint be forwarded to the District Judge for review. 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 Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed December 10, 2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint against the S.S.A. Office of Disability Adjudication, filed November 8, 2007, is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim or a basis for jurisdiction in this Court; 3. Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim or a basis for jurisdiction in this Court; 4. Service is appropriate on the Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue, with respect to plaintiff's claim against the Commissioner of the SSA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383; 5. The Clerk of Court issue a Scheduling Order customarily issued in social security cases; // 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 6. The Clerk of Court send plaintiff: A. B. C. D. E. F. one USM-285 form one summons instruction sheet notice of submission of documents form instruction sheet copy of his first amended complaint (Doc. 7); 7. Plaintiff complete the Notice of Submission of Documents form and submit it to the Court, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, together with the following: A. B. C. completed summons one completed USM-285 form for each defendant three (3) copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed November 8, 2007; and 8. The Clerk of Court, upon receipt of the above documents, forward them to the United States Marshal for service on above-named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 February 3, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?