Houston v. Knowles et al
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/10/11 ADOPTING 67 Findings and Recommendations in Full. Plaintiff's 54 Motion for a temporary restraining order, to the extent it seeks an order directing his release from Administrative Segr egation or otherwise nullifying discipline that is unrelated to the claims raised in the complaint, is DENIED. Plaintiff's 56 Motion to Vacate the 1/19/11 Order is DENIED. Plaintiff's 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , and 47 Motions for Entry of Default Judgment against defendants are DENIED. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
KELVIN HOUSTON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-09-0178 GEB EFB P
vs.
MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On March 3, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
20
herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any
21
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the
22
date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings
23
and recommendations.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
25
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
26
////
1
1
file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
2
proper analysis.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2011, are adopted in full.
5
2. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2011 motion for a temporary restraining order (Docket
6
No. 54), to the extent it seeks an order directing his release from Administrative Segregation or
7
otherwise nullifying discipline that is unrelated to the claims raised in the complaint, is denied.
8
3. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of January 19, 2011 (Docket No. 56) is
9
10
11
12
13
denied.
4. Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default judgment against defendants (Docket
Nos. 42-47) are denied.
So ordered.
Dated: May 10, 2011
14
15
16
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
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?