(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al, No. 1:2010cv02139 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's Motions 2 , 8 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/30/11. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI, 9 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02139-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS v. MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., (DOC. 15) Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Krzysztof Wolinski (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 16 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2010 and November 24, 17 2010, Plaintiff filed motions construed as motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Docs. 2, 8. 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 21 was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings 22 and Recommendations was to be filed within eighteen days. Plaintiff did not file a timely 23 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 24 The court notes that on June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal concerning 25 Plaintiff’s perceived delays in responding to pending motions for injunctive relief. However, no 26 final order has been filed on Plaintiff’s injunctive motions. “When a Notice of Appeal is 27 defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction 28 to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 has issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2 2007). Thus, the court has jurisdiction to review the pending Findings and Recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 4 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 5 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 11, 2011, is adopted in full; and 8 2. Plaintiff’s motions, filed November 9, 2010, and November 24, 2010, are denied. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 June 30, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
