(PC) Miller v. Adonis, et al., No. 1:2012cv00353 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Remand; Thirty Day Deadline for Removing Defendants to Submit Documents as Instructed by this Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/6/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Miller v. Adonis, et al. Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHARLES A. MILLER, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 16 17 1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND (Doc. 9.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR REMOVING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER _____________________________/ 18 Charles A. Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 26, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's 22 motion for remand, filed on March 21, 2012, be denied, and that the Removing Defendants – defendants 23 Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez – be required to submit to the Court copies 24 of all of the documents served upon them during service of process in the state action and before the 25 notice of removal was filed on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 19.) The parties were provided an opportunity to 26 file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, neither party has filed 27 objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court 2 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 3 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 26, 2012, are ADOPTED in full; 7 2. Plaintiff's motion for remand, filed on March 21, 2012, is DENIED; 8 3. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, the Removing Defendants – 9 defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez – are required to 10 submit to the Court copies of all of the documents served upon them during service of 11 process in the state action and before the notice of removal was filed on March 8, 2012; 12 and 13 4. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: b9ed48 December 6, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
