O'Keefe v. Cate

Filing 191

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/18/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of time 177 is DENIED; The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 1/23/15 174 are ADOPTED in full; and Defendants Hoffman, Heatsie, Bonilla, Brown and Beard and Plaintiff's claim alleging a violation of due process based on Defendants' failure to transfer him to RJDCF are DISMISSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JERRY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On January 23, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

23

On February 2, 2015 plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections.

24

(ECF No. 177.) On February 6, 2015, plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 178.) Because

25

plaintiff’s objections were timely filed, the motion for extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

27

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

28

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 177) is denied;

3

2. The findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2015, are adopted in full; and

4

3. Defendants Hoffman, Heatsie, Bonilla, Brown and Beard and plaintiff’s claim alleging

5

a violation of due process based on defendants’ failure to transfer him to RJDCF are dismissed.

6

DATED: March 18, 2015.

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2