-EFB (PC) Whitaker v. Jaffe et al, No. 2:2010cv01400 - Document 75 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/30/11 adopting 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief 50 , 54 are denied. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Whitaker v. Jaffe et al Doc. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH WHITAKER, 11 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1400 KJM EFB P Defendants. ORDER 12 13 vs. CHEN, et al., 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 28, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 23 24 25 26 1 On August 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a document in which he states that he submitted his objections to the findings and recommendations to the law librarian to be copied but that his objections have not been returned. Plaintiff’s five filings between August 11 and September 1, 2011, show that plaintiff is capable of filing documents in this action. Accordingly, the court disregards plaintiff’s assertion at ECF No. 66 to the extent it suggests he is unable to file 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 5 be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2011, are adopted in full; and 8 2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 50, 54, are denied. 9 DATED: November 30, 2011. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 objections. The findings and recommendations stand without objections having been filed by either party. 2