-CMK (PC) Lucas v. Swarthout et al, No. 2:2010cv03252 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 8/17/2011 ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 7 and 25 Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CMK (PC) Lucas v. Swarthout et al Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISIAH LUCAS, JR., 12 13 14 No. CIV S-10-3252-GEB-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. ORDER GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 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 June 24, 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. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have 23 been filed.1 24 25 26 1 In addition to his objections, plaintiff also filed a secondary motion requesting the court implement the preliminary injunction he requested. As this motion failed to cure the defects noted in the findings and recommendations, the motion will similarly be denied. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 24, 2011, are adopted in 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Docs. 7, 25) are denied. 7 8 9 full; and Dated: August 17, 2011 10 11 12 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.
