Thornberry v. Chau, 2:18-cv-0094-WBS-EFB P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191010a51
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , Senior 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 July 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , Senior 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 July 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior 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 July 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Despite an extension of time, plaintiff has not 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 July 23, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 42) is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Source: Leagle
