BROOK v. SINGH, CIV S-09-1364 GEB CKD P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120320850
Visitors: 55
Filed: Mar. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, 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 General Order No. 262. On January 27, 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
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, 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 General Order No. 262. On January 27, 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 r..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, 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 General Order No. 262.
On January 27, 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2012, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' April 11, 2011 motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 48) is denied.
Source: Leagle
