-BAM (PC) Fisher v. Adair, No. 1:2011cv00609 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 16 Motion ;ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/08/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-BAM (PC) Fisher v. Adair Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HILTON FISHER, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00609-AWI-BAM PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. S. ADAIR, (ECF Nos. 16, 17) 13 Defendant. / 14 15 Plaintiff Hilton Fisher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a court order for the return of his legal 19 materials on August 25, 2011. (ECF No. 16.) On August 29, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed 20 findings and recommendations herein which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that 21 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) 22 More than thirty days have passed and no objection has been filed. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 25 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed August 29, 2011, is adopted in full; and 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order filed August 25, 2011, is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: 0m8i78 November 8, 2011 CHIEF 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.
