MORENO v. MEDINA, 2:08-cv-1344-JAM-EFB P. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20130906623
Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 12, 2013, 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 b
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 12, 2013, 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..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 12, 2013, 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.
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 12, 2013, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' September 10, 2012 motion for summary adjudication (ECF No. 109) is granted and plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is summarily adjudicated in favor of defendants.
Source: Leagle
