CECIL v. BEARD, 2:13-cv-1923 TLN KJN P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140625b52
Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 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 25, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be f
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 25, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be fi..
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 25, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file objections.1
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 April 24, 2014, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's October 3, 2014 motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 34) is denied.
FootNotes
1. On May 21, 2014, after the magistrate judge issued his findings and recommendations (ECF No. 41) and the period for objections had lapsed, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition (ECF No. 46) to Defendants' opposition (ECF No. 39) to the motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 34). In the statement of non-opposition, Plaintiff disputes Defendants' characterization of his medical condition but does not object to the instant findings and recommendations.
Source: Leagle
