(PC) Stribling v. Britton, No. 2:2018cv00870 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/17/18 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING 10 , 11 , and 12 which are construed together as a Motion for Reconsideration; and VACATING 8 Order. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
(PC) Stribling v. Britton Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-0870-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BRITTON, Defendant. 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 as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 11, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2018, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff’s belated objections, motion for reconsideration and/or motion for extension 6 of time to file objections (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12) are construed together as a motion for 7 reconsideration of the June 14, 2018 order (ECF No. 8), and so construed, the motion is 8 GRANTED; 9 10 11 12 3. The June 14, 2018 order denying plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is VACATED; and 4. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. DATED: December 17, 2018. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2