Williams v. O'Hagan et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 11/19/2009 ORDERING pltf's 11/3/2009 motion for extension of time is granted; Pltf's 11/13/2009 objections are deemed timely filed; The findings and recommendations filed 10/15/2009, are adopted in full; and pltf's 3/19/2009 motion for relief from judgment is denied.(Matson, R)

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 vs. C.J. O'HAGAN, et al., Defendants. / 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 October 15, 2009, 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 days. On November 3, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations, and on November 13, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion for extension of time will be granted and plaintiff's objections will be deemed timely filed. ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-1428 FCD JFM (PC)

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 and

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, 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. Plaintiff's November 3, 2009 motion for extension of time is granted; 2. Plaintiff's November 13, 2009 objections are deemed timely filed; 3. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2009, are adopted in full;

4. Plaintiff's March 19, 2009 motion for relief from judgment is denied. DATED: November 19, 2009.

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2