-EFB (PC) Houston v. Knowles, et al, No. 2:2009cv00178 - Document 84 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/10/11 ADOPTING 67 Findings and Recommendations in Full. Plaintiff's 54 Motion for a temporary restraining order, to the extent it seeks an order directing his release from Administrative Segr egation or otherwise nullifying discipline that is unrelated to the claims raised in the complaint, is DENIED. Plaintiff's 56 Motion to Vacate the 1/19/11 Order is DENIED. Plaintiff's 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , and 47 Motions for Entry of Default Judgment against defendants are DENIED. (Donati, J)
Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Houston v. Knowles, et al Doc. 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KELVIN HOUSTON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-0178 GEB EFB P vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 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 March 3, 2011, 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 from the 22 date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 23 and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2011, are adopted in full. 5 2. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2011 motion for a temporary restraining order (Docket 6 No. 54), to the extent it seeks an order directing his release from Administrative Segregation or 7 otherwise nullifying discipline that is unrelated to the claims raised in the complaint, is denied. 8 3. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of January 19, 2011 (Docket No. 56) is 9 10 11 12 13 denied. 4. Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default judgment against defendants (Docket Nos. 42-47) are denied. So ordered. Dated: May 10, 2011 14 15 16 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2