Jackson v. Bick, 2:15-cv-2066 WBS DB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180509b50
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 08, 2018
Latest Update: May 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 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 April 5, 2018, 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
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 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 April 5, 2018, 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 ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 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 April 5, 2018, 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. (ECF No. 51.) 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 April 5, 2018 (ECF No. 51), are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 49) is denied.
Source: Leagle
