(PC) Manago v. Cate et al, No. 2:2013cv00081 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/8/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL the 19 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING the 16 Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEWART MANAGO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-0081 GEB AC P v. ORDER MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 16, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 16, 2014, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, ECF No. 16, 4 is denied. 5 Dated: July 8, 2014 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
