Bullock v. Sheela, 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180405795
Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's fourth amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's fourth amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local R..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's fourth amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) 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 March 1, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion, which was styled as a motion for sanctions but sought an order compelling his transfer to a new facility and directing that a criminal investigation be conducted into what he alleged was his attempted murder, be denied. (Doc. Nos. 80, 85.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within twenty-one days. To date, neither party has filed objections and the time for doing so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 85) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 80) is denied; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
