LEWIS v. ADAMS, 1:10-cv-00266-LJO-DLB PC. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120423567
Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (DOC. 44) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency order directing Defendants to forward Plaintiff's legal materials. Doc. 32. The Court construes the motion as one for preliminary injunction. The matter was referr
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (DOC. 44) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency order directing Defendants to forward Plaintiff's legal materials. Doc. 32. The Court construes the motion as one for preliminary injunction. The matter was referre..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
(DOC. 44)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency order directing Defendants to forward Plaintiff's legal materials. Doc. 32. The Court construes the motion as one for preliminary injunction. 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 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. Doc. 44. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on February 21, 2012. Doc. 47.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 February 2, 2012, is adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion, filed June 29, 2011, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
