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)

Download PDF
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?