(PC-G) Wheeler v. Alison et al, No. 1:2012cv00861 - Document 137 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 104 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Transfer 102 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/8/14. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 ERIC WHEELER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 vs. KATHLEEN ALISON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY TRANSFER (Document 104) Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 19 20 21 pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 25, 2012. On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document in which he requests that the Court issue an order staying his pending transfer. The Court construed this as a motion for a preliminary 22 injunction. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 2 3 On May 23, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Neither party has filed 5 objections. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 7 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 8 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 11 12 13 14 15 The Findings and Recommendations, filed on May 23, 2014, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay his pending transfer (Document 102) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill July 8, 2014 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.