BROWN v. McCULLOUGH, 2:11-cv-0093 JAM JFM (PC). (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120402567
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2012
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 February 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on defendants and which contained notice to defendants that any objections to the findings and recommendations were t
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 February 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on defendants and which contained notice to defendants that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to..
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 February 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on defendants and which contained notice to defendants that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants have 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 February 29, 2012, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' January 6, 2012 motion to dismiss is denied.
Source: Leagle
