Montgomery v. Cox, 2:19-cv-2081 MCE KJN P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200206864
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2020
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , 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 October 31, 2019, 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 recommendat
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , 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 October 31, 2019, 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 recommendati..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., 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 October 31, 2019, 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. 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 October 31, 2019, (ECF No. 6) are ADOPTED in full; and
2. Plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Benavidez is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
