(PC) Cohea v. Pliler, et al, No. 2:2000cv02799 - Document 321 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/27/15 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2015, are adopted in full; Plaintiff's 6/1/15 motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 275 ) is denied; Plaintiff&# 039;s 5/21/15 request that the court order his prison disciplinary records inadmissible (ECF No. 272 ) is construed as a motion in limine, and, so construed, is denied without prejudice; and Plaintiff's 7/16/15 objections (ECF No. 309 ) are construed in part asa motion for the district judge to review the magistrate judge's 6/25/15 orders under Local Rule 303, and, so construed, the motion is denied. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Cohea v. Pliler, et al Doc. 321 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANNY J. COHEA, 8 9 10 No. 2:00-cv-2799-GEB-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 14 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 15 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 On June 25, 2015, the magistrate judge filed an Order and Findings and 17 Recommendations herein, (ECF No. 293), which were served on all parties and which contained 18 notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 19 within fourteen days. In a July 16, 2015 filing, Plaintiff objects to the referenced findings and 20 recommendations and appears to request review under Local Rule 303 of the orders issued by the 21 magistrate judge. (ECF No. 309.) 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 23 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed record, the 24 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 25 analysis. 26 In addition, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s orders, issued along with the 27 findings and recommendations on June 25, 2015, were not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). However, the court will grant Plaintiff’s request that the court construe the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 portion of his May 21, 2015 motion (ECF No. 272) seeking the exclusion of his prison 2 disciplinary records as a motion in limine. The court finds that it cannot evaluate the admissibility 3 of these records on the information provided by Plaintiff, and accordingly denies the in limine 4 motion. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2015, are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s June 1, 2015 motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s May 21, 2015 request that the court order his prison disciplinary 8 9 275) is denied; 10 records inadmissible (ECF No. 272) is construed as a motion in limine, and, so construed, is 11 denied without prejudice; and 12 4. Plaintiff’s July 16, 2015 objections (ECF No. 309) are construed in part as 13 a motion for the district judge to review the magistrate judge’s June 25, 2015 orders under Local 14 Rule 303, and, so construed, the motion is denied. 15 Dated: July 27, 2015 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.