(PC) Miller v. Grannis et al, No. 2:2009cv01256 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 04/27/10 ADOPTING in full 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 7 , 8 Motions to Proceed IFP; DENYING 10 , 12 Motions for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff is directed to pay in full, the $350.00 filing fee within 21 days.(Williams, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Miller v. Grannis et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERNEST MILLER, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. 2:09-cv-1256 FCD KJN P GRANNIS, et al., ORDER Defendants. 14 / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 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. On March 17, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 20 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 21 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. On April 9, 22 2010,1 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 24 25 26 1 Although the court docket indicates a filing date of April 16, 2010 (Dkt. No. 16), April 9, 2010 is the date on which petitioner, proceeding pro se, signed and delivered the instant petition to prison officials for mailing (id. at 2). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, that date is considered the filing date of the petition. See Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Dockets.Justia.com “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 1 2 [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 3 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 4 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 5 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The 6 court presumes that any findings of fact not objected to are correct. See Orand v. United States, 7 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 8 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 9 10 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 17, 2010 (Dkt. No. 15), are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8), are denied; 15 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay in full the $350 filing fee within 21 days of the 16 filing date of this order (failure timely to pay the full filing fee will result in dismissal of this 17 action); and 18 19 4. Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 10, 12), are denied. DATED: April 27, 2010. 20 21 22 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
