Maldonado v. Rodriquez et al
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/22/12 ADOPTING in full 39 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 20 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(g) is DENIED and GRANTED pursuant to unenumerated Rule 12(b). Plaintiff's 37 Motion to supplement complaint is DENIED as moot. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JULIO MALDONADO,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1944 GEB DAD P
vs.
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On December 8, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
20
herein which were served on plaintiff and defendant Gandy and which contained notice to them
21
that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days.
22
Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1
23
1
24
25
26
On January 19, 2012, the undersigned adopted the Magistrate Judge Drozd’s findings
and recommendations in full. At the time the court issued its order, neither party had filed
objections to the findings and recommendations. In addition, it appeared that neither party
intended to file any objections. It recently came to the court’s attention, however, that plaintiff
attempted to file a motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. Prison officials metered plaintiff’s legal mail but failed to actually send it to
1
1
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
2
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
3
ORDERED that:
4
5
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 8, 2011, are adopted in
full;
6
7
2. Defendant Gandy’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
8
a. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied;
9
b. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to unenumerated Rule 12(b) is
10
granted; and
11
3. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his complaint (Doc. No. 37) is denied as
12
moot.
13
Dated: June 22, 2012
14
15
16
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the court until recently. In light of those circumstances, on April 24, 2012, the undersigned
vacated the January 19, 2012 order and granted plaintiff forty-five days to file any objections to
Magistrate Judge Drozd’s findings and recommendations. As noted above, plaintiff has not filed
objections to the findings and recommendations.
2
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?