(PS) Isaacson v. Berrigan et al, No. 2:2009cv00017 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/2/10 ORDERING pltf's request for extension of time to file more complete objections is DENIED as unnecessary; the findings and recommendations 22 are ADOPTED IN FULL; dft Bauman's motion to dismiss 7 in which all other dfts have joined, is GRANTED; pltf's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Isaacson v. Berrigan et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUGENE ISAACSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. SHAWN BERRIGAN, et al., 14 ORDER Defendants. 15 / 16 17 No. CIV S-09-0017 MCE DAD PS Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 18 On March 12, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. Plaintiff has 21 filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 23 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 24 file, the court finds the order and findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 25 and by proper analysis. 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff has included in his objections a motion for an extension of time to file “a 2 more complete and consice [sic] answer” to the magistrate judge’s findings and 3 recommendations. (Pl.’s Objections at 2.) Plaintiff has articulated his objections, and the court 4 has conducted a de novo review of the case. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time of 5 unspecified length is therefore denied. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file more complete objections is 8 9 10 11 12 denied as unnecessary; 2. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2010 (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full; 3. Defendant Bauman’s May 29, 2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7), in which all other defendants have joined, is granted; 13 4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and 14 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 15 Dated: April 2, 2010 16 ________________________________ 17 18 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
