(PC) Johnson v. Bread,, 2:15-cv-02269 MCE DB P. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171208b37
Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2017
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. 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 October 25, 2017, 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 recomme
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. 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 October 25, 2017, 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 recommen..
More
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. 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 October 25, 2017, 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. Neither party has 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 October 25, 2017 (ECF No. 42) are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 32) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
