Filed: Nov. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. On September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Plaintiff has timely filed objec
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. On September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Plaintiff has timely filed object..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, 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 filed September 8, 2016, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication (Doc. 40) is denied; and
3. Defendant Sisson's cross-motion for summary adjudication (Doc. 41) is granted.
