(PC) Chappell v. Pliler, et al, No. 2:2004cv01183 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/17/12 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/20/12 63 are ADOPTED in full; Plaintiff's MOTION to Reinstate the case to the active calendar 59 is GRANTED; and the Stay issued 9/4/09 is LIFTED; And Plaintiff's MOTIONS to reinstate the case to the active calendar 60 and 61 are DENIED as duplicative.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Chappell v. Pliler, et al Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REX CHAPPELL, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. C.K. PLILER, et al., Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 No. 2: 04-cv-1183 LKK DAD P Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On September 20, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 20, 2012, are adopted in 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case to the active calendar (Dkt. No. 59.) is GRANTED and the stay issued September 4, 2009 is lifted; and 3. Plaintiff’s motions to reinstate the case to the active calendar (Dkt. Nos. 60 & 5 61) are DENIED as duplicative. 6 DATED: December 17, 2012. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.