(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2009cv00826 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/21/10 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 10/28/09, are adopted in full; Defendants' 7/14/09, motion to dismiss 13 is denied. The defendants are directed to file an answer within 30 days of the filed date of this order. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTHUR CARR, 11 Plaintiff, Defendants. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-0826 GEB GGH P ORDER vs. H. HER, et al., 14 15 / 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 General Order No. 262. 19 On October 28, 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. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 28, 2009, are adopted in full; 2 2. Defendants’ July 14, 2009, motion to dismiss (docket #13) is denied. The 3 defendants are directed to file an answer within thirty days of the filed date of this order. 4 Dated: January 21, 2010 5 6 7 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.