Sorrells v. United States Marshals Service et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 21 Motion, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/13/2016. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON SORRELLS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB (PC)

v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION
(Doc. Nos. 21, 23)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this

20

matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On July 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a court order to receive medical treatment be denied.

24

(Doc. No. 23.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice

25

that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed, and

26

plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

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

4

Given the foregoing:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed on July 19, 2016 (Doc. No. 23) are adopted in

6

full; and
2. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for “affirmative action” (Doc. No. 21) is denied.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 13, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2