Hohman v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-1728 WBS CKD P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141030934
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 September 18, 2014, 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 w
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 September 18, 2014, 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 we..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 September 18, 2014, 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. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, in which he states that Dr. Aguilera's statements are false but does not provide any testimony to refute the essential testimony of Dr. Aguilera.
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 findings and recommendations filed September 18, 2014, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 25) is denied.
Source: Leagle
