James v. Mehta

Filing 128

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/29/13 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 29, 2013, are adopted in full; and Plaintiffs request to enter default against defendant Uppal 90 is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:10-cv-1171 LKK DAD P

vs.
DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights

16
17

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

18

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 29, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

19
20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

22

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

23
1

24
25
26

Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations do not contest the magistrate
judge’s reasoning or his recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for “his
expenses in his multiple attempts to locate and serve Defendant Uppal, as well as for the expense
of providing notice by publication.” Pl’s Objs., ECF No. 108, at 1.
The court will not address Plaintiff’s request for costs in this order. Plaintiff is directed
to file a separate motion for costs before the magistrate judge, in accordance with Eastern
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

2

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

3

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

4

by proper analysis.

5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 29, 2013, are adopted in full;

8

and

9

2. Plaintiff’s request to enter default against defendant Uppal (Doc. No. 90) is

10

denied.

11

DATED: May 29, 2013.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

District of California Local Rule 292.
2