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.

Morris v. Nangalama

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 10, 2013

LEON E. MORRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. NANGALAMA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

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 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein (ECF No. 21) 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 fourteen days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On March 8, 2013, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations, dismissed this action, and judgment was entered.

Thereafter, on March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time (ECF No. 23), accompanied by a document styled, "Motion in Opposition of Court's Order and Its Findings and Recommendations...." (ECF No. 24.) The Court construes Plaintiff's filing as a request for the Court to consider Plaintiff's late objections. Accordingly, the March 8, 2013 Order adopting the findings and recommendations is hereby reconsidered in light of the Plaintiff's recently submitted objections.[1] However, nothing presented in Plaintiff's objections warrants vacating the judgment in this case. In Morris v. Woodford, 3:07-cv-4198 MJJ (N.D. Cal.), the court determined that Plaintiff had "struck out" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissed the case. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to challenge that finding in 3:07-cv-4198 MJJ.[2]

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, including Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court again finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's March 11, 2013 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED;
2. The Order entered on March 8, 2013 (ECF No. 22) adopting in full the findings and recommendations, revoking plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is CONFIRMED; and
3. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this order in which to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action.

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.