MITCHELL v. HAVILAND, 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150310a38
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2015
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 February 5, 2015, 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
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 February 5, 2015, 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 wer..
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 February 5, 2015, 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 February 5, 2015, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Garcia is granted; and
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied on all remaining claims.
Source: Leagle
