Lear v. Akanno, 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180926957
Visitors: 34
Filed: Sep. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This 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 30, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the following: pla
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This 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 30, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the following: plai..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 30, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the following: plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, defendants' motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, plaintiff's motion for immediate resolution of all claims, and plaintiff's motion for a hearing pursuant to Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), and other miscellaneous relief. (Doc. No. 76.) The findings and recommendations provided fourteen days for the parties to file objections. (Id.) On September 10, 2018, plaintiff filed a response stating that he has no objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 77.) Defendants did not file objections, and the time for doing so has expired.
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.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 76) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff's claimed failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 51) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 64 at 2) is denied;
4. Plaintiff's motion for an immediate resolution of all claims and for other relief (Doc. No. 69) is denied;
5. Plaintiff's motion for an Albino hearing and for other relief (Doc. No. 74) is denied; and
6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
