-SMS (PC) Castle v. Hedgpeth et al, No. 1:2008cv01754 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Denying Plaintiff's Motions For Appointment Of Counsel And Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 48 , 65 ), ORDER Discharging Order To Show Cause (ECF Nos. 67 , 68 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/18/2011. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Castle v. Hedgpeth et al Doc. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SY LEE CASTLE, 10 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01754-AWI-SMS Plaintiff, v. A. HEDGPETH, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF Nos. 48, 65) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 / (ECF Nos. 67, 68) 16 17 Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel and the issuance of a preliminary 21 injunction on September 14, 2010. (ECF No. 48.) On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed 22 findings and recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice 23 to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty 24 days. (ECF No. 65.) Thirty days has passed and no objections have been filed. On March 1, 2011, 25 the Magistrate Judge issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be issued for 26 Defendants’ failure to file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to 27 compel. (ECF No. 67.) Defendant filed a response on March 2, 2011, stating that, relying on his 28 experience in the Southern and Central Districts of California, he was presuming that a briefing 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 schedule would be issued by the Court. (ECF No. 68.) Oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to compel 2 were filed on March 7, 2011. (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71.) The Court will accept Defendant’s explanation 3 and the order to show cause shall be discharged. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 6 and recommendations, filed on February 7, 2011, to be supported by the record and by proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 7, 2011, is adopted in full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and a preliminary injunction filed 11 12 13 September 14, 2010, are DENIED; and 3. The order to show cause, issued March 1, 2011, is DISCHARGED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: 0m8i78 April 18, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2