(PC) Jones v. Ballesteros et al, No. 2:2010cv02661 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/18/13 ADOPTING in full 35 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant Lee is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. (Meuleman, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jones v. Ballesteros et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:10-cv-2661 KJM EFB P vs. BALLESTEROS, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 24, 2012, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and 21 recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from 23 the date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations that discuss the order; the court construes the discussion of the 25 order as a motion for reconsideration. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 4 proper analysis. 5 In addition, under Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s order shall be upheld 6 unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the file, the magistrate judge’s 7 ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 24, 2012 are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendant Lee is dismissed from this action without prejudice; and 11 3. The motion for reconsideration is denied. 12 DATED: January 18, 2013. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
