(PC) Pollard v. Harrington, No. 1:2009cv01232 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DENYING 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Order Defendants to Reissue Plaintiff's Personal Property, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/1/2010. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Pollard v. Harrington Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JERRY EMANUEL POLLARD, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1232-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. K. HARRINGTON, 13 (ECF No. 14) Defendant. / 14 15 Plaintiff Jerry Emanuel Pollard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has 16 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 17 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On July 27, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation herein which 19 was served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 20 Recommendation was to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 22.) More than thirty days have 21 passed and Plaintiff has not filed an Objection. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this Court 23 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 24 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed July 27, 2010, is adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s Motions to Order Defendants to Reissue Plaintiff’s Personal Property 4 (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 September 1, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.