Green v. David et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Denying Plaintiff's 20 21 Request for Temporary Restraining Order signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/10/2010. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Green v. David et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Vencil Green, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 October 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. 23.) Neither party filed an objection. 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. /// /// /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT VENCIL C. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. B. S. DAVID, et al., CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01747-AWI-GBC PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs. 20, 21, 23) 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. The findings and recommendations, filed October 12, 2010, is adopted in full; and Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order filed September 10 and 29, 2010 are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 December 10, 2010 CHIEF 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?