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
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?