Cohea v. Adams et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and Denying 2 11 25 Motions signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 04/22/2010. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// 1 Plaintiff Danny James Cohea ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 18, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. #31.) Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on December 14, 2009. (Doc. #37.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 18, 2009, are adopted in full; and v. (Doc. 2, 11, 25, 31) D. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. / DANNY JAMES COHEA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-SKO PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: b9ed48 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on August 13, 2008, is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's petitions for a writ of mandamus, filed on October 16, 2008 and September 8, 2009, are DENIED; and 4. Plaintiff's request for this action to be certified as a class action is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 22, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?