Gipbsin v. Kernan, 2:12-cv-0556 KJM DB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180628a72
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations w..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 twenty-one days. (ECF No. 217.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 21, 2018, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 206, 210, 213, 215) are denied; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.
Source: Leagle
