(PC) Von Staich v. California Board of Parole Hearings, 2:15-cv-1182 JAM DB P. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171221a25
Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 16 and August 29, 2017, 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 reco
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 16 and August 29, 2017, 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 recom..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 16 and August 29, 2017, 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 either one of the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds both 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 August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 44) are adopted in full;
a. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 23) is denied; and
b. Plaintiff's motions for summary adjudication (ECF Nos. 28, 38) and motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 34) are denied without prejudice as premature.
2. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 46) are adopted in full and plaintiff's July 24, 2017 Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 40) is denied.
Source: Leagle
