ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER (Doc. Nos. 68, 69)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Stratmon, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 30, 2017, defendant Morris filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 67.) Plaintiff did not respond to that motion within the time permitted. Instead, on December 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment by default and to strike defendant's answer, on the basis that plaintiff's ability to litigate this case had been curtailed due to the destruction and confiscation of his legal property. (Doc. No. 68.)

On January 18, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for judgment by default and to strike defendant's answer be denied. (Doc. No. 69.) The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed objections on February 2, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.) Defendant filed a response to plaintiff's objections on February 13, 2018. (Doc. No. 71.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections and defendant's response thereto, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In his objections, plaintiff concedes that defendant is not the staff member he accuses of destroying his legal materials. (Doc. No. 70 at 1.) Nevertheless, plaintiff objects that affidavits, memoranda, emails, letters, notes, and copies of policies and procedures related to this case were taken from him and destroyed. (Id.) Plaintiff further objects that his legal reference books were confiscated, and that when he attempted to retrieve them, a property officer told him they could not be found. (Id. at 1-2.) Thus, plaintiff seeks redress through "whatever systems are in place." (Id. at 2.)

Defendant was employed at the U.S. Penitentiary at Atwater at the time of the events at issue, which occurred while plaintiff was incarcerated at that institution. Plaintiff now accuses other prison officials at the institution where he is currently being held—the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana—of destroying his property and thereby interfering with his ability to litigate his case. Sanctioning defendant Morris by striking her answer and entering default judgment in favor of the plaintiff is not an appropriate sanction to even be considered under the facts and circumstances alleged by plaintiff.1

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.