(PC) Micenheimer v. Galaza et al, No. 1:2010cv00340 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 11 Motions for Injunctive Relief signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/8/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Micenheimer v. Galaza et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY DWAYNE MICENHEIMER, CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-00340-OWW-GBC (PC) 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 11, 14) 15 16 Defendants. ______________________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiff Cory Dwayne Micenheimer (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on 20 September 15, 2009, alleging interference with mail. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to be removed from the custody of the 23 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and a notice of his inability to serve Defendants 24 in this action. (Docs. 11, 12). On January 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 25 Recommendations herein which was served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice to the Plaintiff 26 that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On 27 January 27, 2011, Plaintiff submitted objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and the entire file, the Court 2 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 3, 2011, is adopted in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, filed May 24, 2010, is DENIED. SO ORDERED. 6 Emm0d6Dated: 7 February 8, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I I TS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
