JONES v. SCOTLAND, 2:12-cv-0633 TLN DAD P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150324a80
Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , 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 February 3, 2015, 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
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , 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 February 3, 2015, 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 w..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 February 3, 2015, 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. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
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 February 3, 2015 are adopted in full;
2. Defendant CDCR's June 10, 2014 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is granted; and
3. The dismissal of CDCR as a defendant in this action is with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
