Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hammler v. Director of CDCR, 2:17-cv-01949 MCE DB P. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190912810 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claims prison officials have failed to provide him with safe living conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations here
More

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims prison officials have failed to provide him with safe living conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 11, 2019, 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. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff did not file objections or request additional time to file objections during the time provided. However, plaintiff has alleged in his motion to enforce (ECF No. 69) that he refrained from filing objections because the court's order and findings and recommendations (ECF No. 61) instructed counsel for defendants to submit a response informing the court of plaintiff's housing status and any measures taken to address his safety concerns.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 11, 2019, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 54) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer