-GBC (PC)Strother v. Myers et al, No. 1:2011cv01131 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/4/2012 adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 9 , 10 Motions for Injunctive Relief.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GBC (PC)Strother v. Myers et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEVEN MATTHEW STROTHER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 CASE NO. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS v. WENDY K. MYERS, et al., 14 1:11-cv-01131-AWI-GBC (PC) FINDINGS AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. 15 / (ECF Number 9, 10, 11) 16 17 I. Procedural History 18 Plaintiff Steven Matthew Strother ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se and 19 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On 21 22 September 2, 2011, and September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed two motions for injunctive relief. (ECF 23 Nos. 9 & 10). On October 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 24 herein which was served on the Plaintiff which contained notice that any objections to the Findings 25 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 11). On October 26, 2011, 26 Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 12). 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 II. Conclusion and Order In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 4 5 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 9 The Findings and Recommendations filed on October 11, 2011, is adopted in full (Doc. 11); and 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, filed September 2, 2011, and September 6, 10 2011, are DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 0m8i78 14 February 4, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.
