(PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al, No. 2:2006cv02732 - Document 87 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 01/14/10 and ORDERING that plf's 79 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED w/o prejudice; this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al Doc. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MALIK JONES, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P ORDER C. STIEFERMAN, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On November 5, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have 23 been filed.1 24 /// 25 1 26 Attorney Ellen Dove filed objections on behalf of Plaintiff, requesting the court’s denial of the motion for protective order be without prejudice. 1 Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 1 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2009, are adopted 2. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (Doc 79) is denied without 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further 7 in full; 8 9 prejudice; and 10 11 proceedings. 12 DATED: January 14, 2010. 13 14 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.