(PC) Tunstall v. Knowles, et al, No. 2:2008cv03176 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 90 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 09/03/10 and ORDERING that plf's 51 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 62 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 86 and 89 Motions for Injunctive Relief are DENIED. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Tunstall v. Knowles, et al Doc. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT TUNSTALL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-3176 WBS JFM (PC) ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 6, 2010 (Docket No. 90), the magistrate judge filed findings and 20 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 21 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 22 days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2010 (Docket No 90), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s December 17, 2009 motion is denied; 5 3. Plaintiff’s December 28, 2009 motion is denied; 6 4. Plaintiff’s January 5, 2010 motion is denied; 7 5. Plaintiff’s January 21, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 8 6. Plaintiff’s March 4, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 9 7. Plaintiff’s March 22, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 10 8. Plaintiff’s March 29, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 11 9. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 12 10. Plaintiff’s April 2, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 13 11. Plaintiff’s April 15, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 14 12. Plaintiff’s April 28, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 15 13. Plaintiff’s June 3, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 16 14. Plaintiff’s July 8, 2010 motions for injunctive relief are denied; 17 15. Plaintiff’s July 26, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 18 16. Plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; 19 17. Plaintiff’s July 30, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied; and 20 18. Plaintiff’s August 3, 2010 motion for injunctive relief is denied. 21 DATED: September 3, 2010 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.
