Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GRAHAM v. JUBB, 2:08-cv-2533 GEB KJN P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120810a05 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., 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 July 3, 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

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., 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 July 3, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

On July 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for the status of his motions filed in April. Plaintiff did not provide a certificate of service or date the request, However, it appears that plaintiff had not yet received the July 3, 2002 findings and recommendations at the time he submitted the July 19, 2012 filing to prison officials for mailing. Plaintiff is still incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, where the findings and recommendations were served, and from which plaintiff sent the July 19, 2012 request. Fourteen more days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections.

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 July 3, 2012, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' February 2, 2012 motion to dismiss (dkt no. 62) is denied;

3. This action is stayed for a period of four months from the date of this order; and

4. Defendants shall file an answer within fourteen days from any order lifting the stay in this action.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer