-CMK (PC) Burgos v. Cate et al, No. 2:2009cv03276 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/16/2011 ADOPTING 32 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 13 , 14 , 15 and 24 Motions for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING 37 Motion for Reconsideration as moot. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
-CMK (PC) Burgos v. Cate et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. AMENDED ORDER MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. Plaintiff submitted untimely objections to the findings and 23 recommendations on October 3, 2011, which were received by the court and filed after his 24 request for additional time to do so was denied by Order dated September 30, 2011. Although 25 the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s September 2, 2011 findings and recommendations by 26 Order filed October 27, 2011, Plaintiff subsequently filed, on November 10, 2011, a Motion for 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Reconsideration (ECF No. 37) that challenges the Magistrate Judge’s September 30, 2011 2 decision which denied Plaintiff’s extension request. Given the pending Motion for 3 Reconsideration, this court decided to go ahead and review Plaintiff’s previously filed objections 4 before otherwise addressing the reconsideration request. 5 of his objections, and has considered the same. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, the court 6 finds that they do not change its previous October 27, 2011 Order adopting the findings and 7 recommendations. The Court will therefore reiterate its prior ruling: Regardless, the court notes the receipt 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 9 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 10 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 11 proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 2, 2011, are adopted 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. 13, 14, 15, 24) are 3. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and 14 in full; and 15 16 17 18 19 denied. recommendations, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is denied as moot. Dated: December 16, 2011 20 21 22 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 2