(PC) Woods v. Roddrick, et al., No. 2:2014cv02458 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/9/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 are ADOPTED in FULL; The judgment entered in this action 25 (and therefore the Findings and Recommendations 20 ) are VACATED; and this action is REOPENED for further consideration of Plaintiff's First AmendedComplaint 15 and the merits of this action, including Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. 27 (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Woods v. Roddrick, et al. Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAJHIKEEM WOODS, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-2458 MCE AC (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODDRICK, 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 September 18, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 21 (ECF No. 28), which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to 22 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 “objections” which, liberally construed, do not contest the magistrate judge findings and 24 recommendations. ECF No. 30. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 18, 2015 (ECF No. 28) are 3 4 5 6 ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The judgment entered in this action on August 20, 2015 (ECF No. 25) (and therefore the Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 2015 (ECF No. 20)) are VACATED; and 3. This action is reopened for further consideration of Plaintiff’s First Amended 7 Complaint (ECF No. 15) and the merits of this action, including Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective 8 Order filed September 10, 2015 (ECF No. 27). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2015 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.