Filed: May 14, 2014
Latest Update: May 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 April 11, 2014, the magistrate judge filed amended 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
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 April 11, 2014, the magistrate judge filed amended 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 w..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 April 11, 2014, the magistrate judge filed amended 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.1 Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.2
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 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 amended findings and recommendations filed April 11, 2014 are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 25) is denied;
3. Defendants' alternative request for sanctions also is denied;
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) from the docket.
