ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate who litigated his case in pro per until this court appointed counsel Alexandra Summer to represent him. ECF No. 105. On February 16, 2012, the parties notified the court that the case had settled. ECF No. 135. On April 26, 2012 the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal and the next day the court closed the case in response to this notice. ECF Nos. 140, 141.

Just before the parties filed their stipulation for dismissal, prison officials at California State Prison-Sacramento discovered that many pieces of prisoners' mail, including legal documents, had not been sent to their recipients. The prison then mailed that correspondence, often several years after the prisoners had provided it to prison authorities for mailing. One of the delayed pieces of mail was plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, filed August 25, 2009, which recommended denying his request that the court enter judgment as to its order dismissing a number of defendants so that plaintiff could appeal the order. The magistrate judge's decision also denied in an order plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendant Lozano and his motion to quash the notice and taking of his deposition. ECF Nos. 53, 139.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for sanctions. He points out that when the court adopted the findings and recommendations, it observed that plaintiff had not filed objections. Thereafter, he sent a copy of his objections to the court, which rejected them as belated objections. See ECF Nos. 70 & 78. The sanctions plaintiff seeks have nothing to do with the merits of his challenge to the findings and recommendations; rather he seeks an order directing CDCR to house him in a single cell, something he sought during settlement negotiations in this case. ECF No. 142 at 3. Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion.

The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations of August 25, 2009, and plaintiff's objections to them. Treating the objections as timely filed, they would not have caused the court to reject the findings and recommendations.

Moreover, the court declines to sanction CDCR for the acts or omissions of an unknown employee or employees by requiring it to do something not connected to the underlying wrong.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 142) is denied.