Kelly, et al v. Mitchell, et al
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/28/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/30/11 49 are ADOPTED in full; Plaintiff's 1/19/11 MOTION to reopen this case 47 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BERTHA KELLY and
ANNETTE MCKEE,
11
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV S-04-1873 WBS DAD PS
12
vs.
13
RICHARD C. MITCHELL,
14
Defendant.
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was
16
17
ORDER
/
15
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
18
On September 30, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
19
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any
20
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days.
21
Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
22
23
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
24
entire file, the court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to be supported
25
by the record and by proper analysis.
26
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2011 (Doc. No. 49),
3
are adopted in full; and
4
2. Plaintiff’s January 19, 2011 motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 47) is
5
denied.
6
DATED: October 28, 2011
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
/kelly1873.jo
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?