(PS) Rodriguez v. Simmons et al, No. 2:2009cv02195 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 4/6/2010 ORDERING 36 Findings and Recommendations are adopted; and 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Rodriguez v. Simmons et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 14 No. CIV-S-09-2195-FCD-KJN-PS UNKNOWN-NAMED DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, AGENT A.K.A. “SERGEANT SIMMONS,” et al., ORDER 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ On March 9, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 17 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 20 21 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 25 26 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. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 9, 2010, are ADOPTED; 1 2 3 4 and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied DATED: April 6, 2010. 5 6 7 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, 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.