Daniels v. Sherman
Filing
28
ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/3/2020. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Case No. 1:16-cv-01313-AWI-EPG
NORMAN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
15
STU SHERMAN,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF NO. 23)
Defendants.
16
17
Norman Gerald Daniels, III (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
19
20
21
22
23
pauperis, commenced this action by filing a Complaint against Stu Sherman (“Defendant”),
Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison Corcoran (“SATF”),
on September 6, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action with prejudice on
March 20, 2017, on res judicata grounds. On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing his case. (ECF No. 23.)
On August 30, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean issued findings and
24
25
26
27
28
recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration be denied. (ECF No.
26.)
Plaintiff was given 30 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations and did
so on September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 27.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
2
Court had conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
3
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
4
analysis.
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 23.) is DENIED.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2020
SENIOR 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?