Torres v. Diaz et al

Filing 71

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 39 ; ORDER DENYING 38 Plaintiff's Request for Court Order to Obtain Confidential Calls During Discovery Phase of Litigation; and ORDER STRIKING 66 Prior Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/1/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN MATIAS TORRES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00492-AWI-SAB (PC)
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER TO OBTAIN
CONFIDENTIAL CALLS DURING DISCOVERY
PHASE OF LITIGATION, AND ORDER
STRIKING PRIOR ORDER
[ECF Nos. 38, 39, 66]

17

On Mary 29, 2015, the Court adopted a Findings and Recommendation that denied a request to

18

obtain calls during discovery. See Doc. No. 66. The Court has noticed a clerical error associated with

19

that adoption order. To remedy the error, the Court will strike the May 29, 2015 adoption order and

20

replace with this order.
Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

21
22

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

On March 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

24

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that Objections to the Findings and

25

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The thirty day time frame has expired and no

26

objections were filed.

27

//

28

//
1

1

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

2

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

3

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 19, 2015, is adopted in full;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to obtain confidential calls during the discovery
phase of litigation is DENIED;

8
9
10

3.

The Court’s order of May 29, 2015 is STRICKEN and replaced with this amended
order.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: June 1, 2015

14

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2