Valdez v. Beard, 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-MJS (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180323a33
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 88) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 December 26, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 88) to deny Plaintiff's moti
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 88) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 December 26, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 88) to deny Plaintiff's motio..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 88)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 December 26, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 88) to deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 79) of the order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54). No objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff's case. The Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 26, 2017 are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
