Filed: Aug. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Document 42) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Plaintiff Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, Maxfield, Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. The action is currently in discovery. O
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Document 42) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Plaintiff Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, Maxfield, Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. The action is currently in discovery. On..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Document 42)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, Maxfield, Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. The action is currently in discovery.
On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. 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 July 13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 13, 2016, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Document 40) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
