SICKLER v. CURTIS, 2:11-cv-0205 WBS CKD P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120627952
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 May 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations that were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one da
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 May 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations that were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one day..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 May 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations that were served on all parties and contained notice 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 May 17, 2012, are adopted in full.
2. The motion for a court order regarding access to the prison law library (Docket No. 52), construed by the court as a motion for injunctive relief, is denied.
Source: Leagle
