(PC) Miller v. Brown, et al., No. 1:2010cv00453 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/10/2011 adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 10 Motion to remand.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Miller v. Brown, et al. Doc. 28 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER, 6 Case No. 1:10-cv-00453 LJO JLT (PC) Plaintiff, 7 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 16) 8 EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 ________________________________/ 11 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 14 On September 30, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 15 were served on Plaintiff and contained noticed that any objections to the findings and 16 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 17 findings and recommendations. 18 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a 19 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 20 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. 23 The findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge filed September 30, 2010, are adopted in full; and 24 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand this matter is denied. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 January 10, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 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.