(PC) Miller v. California State Prison et al, No. 1:2008cv00234 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Defendant's 48 Motion to Dismiss Brought Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(G), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/6/2009. (Sondheim, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Miller v. California State Prison et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ERNEST MILLER, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00234-OWW-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 48 and 55) / 14 15 Plaintiff Ernest Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 16 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 17 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 18 On May 1, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 19 was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 20 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The parties have not filed timely 21 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 24 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. 27 /// 28 The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 1, 2009, is adopted in full; and /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), filed March 20, 2009, is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 6, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.