(PC) Von Staich v. California Board of Parole Hearings et al, No. 2:2015cv01182 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/19/2017 ORDERING the 44 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's 23 motion for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff's 28 , 38 motions for summary adjudication and 34 motion for judicial notice are DENIED without prejudice as premature. The 46 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full and plaintiff's 40 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Von Staich v. California Board of Parole Hearings et al Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN VON STAICH, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1182 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 16 and August 29, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and 22 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 23 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 24 days. Neither party has filed objections to either one of the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 court finds both 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 August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 44) are adopted in 3 full; 4 a. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 23) is denied; and 5 b. Plaintiff’s motions for summary adjudication (ECF Nos. 28, 38) and motion for 6 7 8 9 judicial notice (ECF No. 34) are denied without prejudice as premature. 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 46) are adopted in full and plaintiff’s July 24, 2017 Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 40) is denied. DATED: 12/19/2017 10 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DLB:9 stai1182.801(2) 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.
