RICHARDSON v. SISTO, 2:10-cv-0025 GEB EFB P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120703894
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 May 3, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommend
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 May 3, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommenda..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 May 3, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2012, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 48) is denied.
Source: Leagle
