Jackson v. Singh, 2:14-cv-02809-TLN-EFB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180615a19
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , 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 April 30, 2018, 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 we
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , 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 April 30, 2018, 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 wer..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 April 30, 2018, 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. (ECF No. 39.) 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 April 30, 2018 (ECF No. 39), are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's December 11, 2017 motion for stay (ECF No. 32) is DENIED without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
