Anderson v. Hansen et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Protective Order and Hearing Thereon, (Docs. 35 , 36 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/2/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

IREN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14

CASE No.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND HEARING
THEREON

v.

15
16
17
18

1:09-cv-01924-LJO-MJS (PC)

RON D. HANSEN, et al.,
(ECF No. 53)
Defendants.
/

19
20
21

Plaintiff Iren Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
23

Defendants have declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Decline to Consent, ECF No.

24
46.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Second Am.
25
26
27
-1-

1 Compl., ECF No. 19) asserting Eighth Amendment claims of excessive force against
2
3

Defendant Hansen, failure to protect against Defendant Hartley and failure to intervene
against Defendant Lewis. (Order Finding Cognizable Claims, ECF No. 20.) Defendants

4
5

Hansen, Hartley, and Lewis have answered. (Answer, ECF No. 25.)
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

6

7 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
8 of California.
9
10

On September 13, 2012, Findings and Recommendation Denying Plaintiff’s Motions
for Protective Order and Hearing Thereon (Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 53)

11
12
13

were filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motions for temporary
protective order and hearing thereon (Motions, ECF Nos. 35-36) be DENIED without

14 prejudice by the District Judge. The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due
15 within fourteen days. The fourteen day deadline has passed without any party having filed
16 objections or seeking an extension of time to do so.
17

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has

18
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
19
20

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

21 proper analysis.
22 ///////
23 ///////
24

///////

25
///////
26
27

///////
-2-

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendation filed September 13,
2012, in full, and

4

2.

Plaintiff's Motions for temporary protective order and hearing thereon (ECF

5
Nos. 35-36) are DENIED without prejudice.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated:
b9ed48
9

October 2, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-