(PC)Fruits v. Shasta County Sheriffs, 2:16-cv-1204 MCE KJN P. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171207888
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , Magistrate 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 August 31, 2017, 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 recommenda
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , Magistrate 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 August 31, 2017, 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 recommendat..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Magistrate 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 August 31, 2017, 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 has not 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 August 31, 2017, are ADOPTED in full; and
2. Defendants Does 1, 3, 4, and 5 are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
