Sekona v. Lizarraga, 2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190724911
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2019
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 28, 2019, 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
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 28, 2019, 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 we..
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 28, 2019, 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 fourteen days. 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 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Consistent with the magistrate judge's observation at page 2, lines 10-11 of the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 58, while plaintiff may not raise in this action claims based on events that occurred at Kern Valley State Prison described in his objections, he may be able to initiate a new action based on those alleged events.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 28, 2019, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 52) is denied.
Source: Leagle
