Lear v. Biter, 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-MJS. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180516b48
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 14, 2018
Latest Update: May 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 12, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issue
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 12, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On March 12, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for a court order requiring officials at Pelican Bay State Prison to forward to plaintiff his materials and legal property, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. No. 53.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff with notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed no objection and the time for doing so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
For these reasons:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2018 (Doc. 53) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 52) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
