Johnson v. Sisto et al
Filing
118
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/7/11 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations 91 are adopted in full; Defendant Fleischman's motion to dismiss 74 is granted; Plaintiff's claims against defendant Fleischman are dismissed; and the Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the description of the document 112 to note that the document is an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 94 . (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
No. Civ S-08-1609 KJM KJN P
vs.
D.K. SISTO, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER
/
15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
16
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 9, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
19
20
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
21
findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed
22
objections to the findings and recommendations.1
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
23
24
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
25
1
26
The document currently identified as objections on the court docket is in fact an
opposition to a different motion to dismiss. See ECF 112.
1
1
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
2
1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to
3
be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2011, are adopted in full;
6
2. Defendant Fleischman’s February 1, 2011 motion to dismiss (ECF 74) is
7
granted;
8
3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Fleischman are dismissed; and
9
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the description of the document
10
filed at ECF 112, to note that the document is an opposition to the motion to dismiss filed at ECF
11
94.
12
DATED: September 7, 2011.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
/john1609.801F
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?