Filed: Aug. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Judge. Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c). On June 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 5, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Judge. Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c). On June 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 5, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Judge.
Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c).
On June 29, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 5, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On July 10, 2012, defendants filed a response to the objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 June 29, 2012 are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (dkt. no. 25), construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is denied.
