-DLB (PC) Henderson v. Rodriguez, No. 1:2008cv00188 - Document 102 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 93 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 85 Motion signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/20/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DLB (PC) Henderson v. Rodriguez Doc. 102 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00188-LJO-DLB PC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 6 v. 7 G. RODRIGUEZ, (DOC. 93) 8 Defendant. 9 10 / 11 Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro 12 se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion 13 for temporary restraining order, construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. Doc. 85. The 14 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 15 Local Rule 302. 16 On August 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 17 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and 18 Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. Doc. 93. Neither party filed a timely 19 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 21 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 22 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 23, 2011, is adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion, filed June 22, 2011, is DENIED. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: b9ed48 September 20, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
