(PC) King v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2006cv00065 - Document 113 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/23/09 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 111 are ADOPTED IN FULL and dfts' motion for certification 106 is GRANTED and the court's order of 7/31/09 is CERTIFIED for interlocutory appeal.. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PC) King v. California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEVIN KING, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0065 LKK GGH P vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / 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 General Order No. 262. 19 On October 26, 2009, 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 twenty days. Plaintiff 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 26, 2009, are adopted in full; 3 4 and 2. Defendants’ August 31, 2009 motion for certification (Docket No. 106) is 5 granted and the court’s July 31, 2009, order is certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 28 6 U.S.C. 1292(b). 7 DATED: December 23, 2009. 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.