(PC) Hammler v. Wright, 2:15-cv-1645-GEB-EFB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180118692
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior 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 November 28, 2017, 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
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior 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 November 28, 2017, 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 ..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., Senior 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 November 28, 2017, 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 November 28, 2017, are adopted in full; and
2. Wright's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) is denied.
Source: Leagle
