Baston v. Yett, et al.

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Bar Transfer signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/7/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELGAN BASTON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. EDWARD M. YETT, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01564-LJO-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BAR TRANSFER BE DENIED (ECF Nos. 32, 41) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Elgan Baston (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to bar Plaintiff’s prison transfer to Tehachapi State Prison be denied. (ECF No. 31.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants did not file objections, and Plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he objected to the underlying decision not to prevent his transfer, (ECF No. 44). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 1 1 1. are adopted in full; 2 3 The findings and recommendations entered on January 18, 2018 (ECF No. 41) 2. Plaintiff’s motion to bar transfer (ECF No. 32) is denied; and 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ February 7, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 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?