Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Remand; Thirty Day Deadline for Removing Defendants to Submit Documents as Instructed by this Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/6/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHARLES A. MILLER,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 19.)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR REMAND
(Doc. 9.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR REMOVING
DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS
AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

_____________________________/

18

Charles A. Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20

28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On October 26, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's

22

motion for remand, filed on March 21, 2012, be denied, and that the Removing Defendants – defendants

23

Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez – be required to submit to the Court copies

24

of all of the documents served upon them during service of process in the state action and before the

25

notice of removal was filed on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 19.) The parties were provided an opportunity to

26

file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, neither party has filed

27

objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.

28

1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court

2

has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds

3

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

5

1.

6

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 26,
2012, are ADOPTED in full;

7

2.

Plaintiff's motion for remand, filed on March 21, 2012, is DENIED;

8

3.

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, the Removing Defendants –

9

defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez – are required to

10

submit to the Court copies of all of the documents served upon them during service of

11

process in the state action and before the notice of removal was filed on March 8, 2012;

12

and

13

4.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
b9ed48

December 6, 2012

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2