Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a former 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommend
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a former 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommenda..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a former 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. ECF No. 95. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 6, 2015 (ECF No. 95), are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction or protective order (ECF No. 90) is denied as moot.
