Jones v. Stieferman et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 01/14/10 and ORDERING that plf's 79 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED w/o prejudice; this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Attorney Ellen Dove filed objections on behalf of Plaintiff, requesting the court's denial of the motion for protective order be without prejudice. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MALIK JONES, Plaintiff, vs. C. STIEFERMAN, et al., Defendants. / No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On November 5, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.1 /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 proceedings. prejudice; and in full; In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2009, are adopted 2. Plaintiff's motion for protective order (Doc 79) is denied without 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further DATED: January 14, 2010. _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?