(PC) Stephen v. Zhang et al, No. 2:2009cv01516 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 67 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/10/2010. Plaintiff's 53 Request for Order directing prison authorities to provide typewriter ribbons, interpreted as Request for Injunctive Relief, is DENIED. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Stephen v. Zhang et al Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE STEPHEN, 12 No. 2:09-cv-01516-MCE-KJM P Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 F. ZHANG, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 20 On November 10, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2010, are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing prison authorities to provide typewriter 8 9 ribbons (Docket No. 53), interpreted as a request for injunctive relief is denied. Dated: December 10, 2010 10 11 12 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 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.