-JFM (PC) Turner v. Shepherd et al, No. 2:2011cv00451 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/8/11; Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2011 and October 11, 2011 are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiffs July 15, 2011 motion for contempt is denied; and 3. Plaintiffs July 25, 2011 motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.(Matson, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JFM (PC) Turner v. Shepherd et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY R. TURNER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 No. 2:11-cv-0451 MCE JFM (PC) vs. 13 DIANE SHEPARD, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 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 September 29, 2011 and October 11, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings 20 and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to 21 plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty 22 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2011 and October 11, 2011 are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s July 15, 2011 motion for contempt is denied; and 4 3. Plaintiff’s July 25, 2011 motion for summary judgment is denied without 5 prejudice. 6 7 Dated: November 8, 2011 8 9 10 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 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.
