SHIELDS v. KOELLING, 2:10-cv-2866-WBS-KJN-P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140912766
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 August 11, 2014, 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 recommendati
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 August 11, 2014, 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 recommendatio..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 August 11, 2014, 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 August 11, 2014, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
