Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Woodford

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 17, 2010

GERALD LEE MILLER, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
JANE WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

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 Rule 302.

On January 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a joint order and findings and recommendations, which was 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-one days from the date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed a document styled as an objection to the findings and recommendations. However, the majority of plaintiff's arguments pertain to the Magistrate Judge's orders, rather than to the findings and recommendations. The court construes these arguments as a request for reconsideration under E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(c).

As to the findings and recommendations, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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.

As to the order regarding plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File an Amended Motion to Compel Discovery," plaintiff's "Motion[s] for Intervention," and plaintiff's "Request for U.S. Marshal to be Provide[d] with the Present or Last Known Address of Defendant G. Costra for Service of Summons and Complaint," the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's denial of these motions was properly. The court therefore denies plaintiff's implicit request for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2010, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Temporary Restraining Order," Dckt. No. 67, is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's "Motion for Default Judgment. Petitioner Request for Ex Parte Hearing Before the Court and Judgment without Further Notice," Dckt. No. 83, is DENIED;

4. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law causes, Dckt. No. 88, is GRANTED, and the fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth causes of action in plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint are dismissed;

6. Insofar as plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations pertain to the Magistrate Judge's orders, rather than to the findings and recommendations, the court construes these objections as a request for reconsideration;

7. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is denied; and 8. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege his compliance with the California Tort Claims Act, if he can, within 30 days of this order.

So ordered.

20100317

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.