K'napp v. Adams et al
Filing
86
ORDER ADOPTING 75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 66 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/18/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 75.)
vs.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,
15
16
1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. 66.)
Defendants.
_______________________________/
17
Eric Charles Rodney K'napp ("Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to
19
a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On May 23, 2011, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending that
21
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on February 25, 2011, be denied. On July 22,
22
2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304,
23
24
this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
25
including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported
26
by the record and proper analysis.
27
///
28
1
1
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
2
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on May 23,
3
2011, are ADOPTED in full; and
4
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on February 25, 2011, is
5
DENIED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
b9ed48
August 18, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?