(PC) Wilkerson v. Woodford, No. 2:2005cv02482 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/25/11 ORDERING 54 Objections to Findings and Recommendations are accepted as timely filed, nunc pro tunc; and denying 53 Motion for Relief from Final Judgment is denied. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Wilkerson v. Woodford Doc. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 J.R. WILKERSON 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. CIV S-05-2482 LKK DAD P 12 13 WOODFORD, et al. 14 ORDER AND Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 On March 31, 2011, the district judge assigned to this case adopted the magistrate judge’s 17 findings and recommendations, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ordered 18 the case closed with final judgment entered in favor of defendants. At the time, plaintiff had not 19 filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Then, on April 25, 20 2011, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 (b), which allows for relief from an 21 order of final judgment. Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations on the 22 same day. 23 In his motion, plaintiff states that his restricted access to the prison law library and 24 his legal materials prevented him from filing objections within the fourteen days prescribed by 25 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Motion at 2 (Docket No. 53). Based 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 on that representation, the court accepts plaintiff’s objections as timely filed, nunc pro tunc. 2 However, having reviewed the objections, the court finds no reason to vacate or amend the 3 findings and recommendations or to modify the order of final judgment. The motion for relief 4 from final judgment will be denied. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations of March 11, 2011, 7 8 9 10 (Docket No. 54) are accepted as timely filed, nunc pro tunc. 2. The motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from final judgment (Docket No. 53) is denied. DATED: August 25, 2011. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.