Filed: Mar. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior 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 6, 2012, 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 recommend
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior 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 6, 2012, 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 recommenda..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior 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 6, 2012, 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 twenty-one 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, except as to the magistrate judge's implication that plaintiff needs to "set forth the exact words he told defendant Conrad." Order, ECF No. 26, at 10. Plaintiff may be able to "set forth specific facts as to what he told defendant Conrad," id., without needing to recall the conversation verbatim. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 6, 2012, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant Rice's July 19, 2011 motion to dismiss (dkt no. 15) is granted.
