(PC) Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al., No. 1:2015cv00924 - Document 48 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 35 Defendants' Request for Consolidation signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/7/2017. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GONZALES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO v. A. PODSAKOFF et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION Defendants. (Docs. Nos. 35, 42) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 25, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued finding and recommendations, 22 23 recommending that this court deny defendants’ request to consolidate this action with Gonzales v. 24 Garcia et al., No. 1:16-cv-01813-EPG (E.D. Cal. filed Oct. 12, 2016). (Doc. No. 42.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections 26 thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id.) No objections have been filed.1 27 28 1 On May 26, 2017, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ request to consolidate, which concurs with the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (See Doc. No. 43.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The May 25, 2017 findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 42) are adopted in full; 6 2. Defendants’ request to consolidate this action with Gonzales v. Garcia et al., No. 7 8 9 1:16-cv-01813-EPG (Doc. No. 35), is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.