Chan v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/14/10 ORDERING that the 49 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Pltf's claim regarding the Buddha alter contained in his 48 Motion is DENIED. (Owen, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Chan v. County of Sacramento et al Doc. 55 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 vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 27, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. /// /// /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MADY CHAN, Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-02006-MCE-GGH P ORDER 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 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 August 27, 2010, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff's claim regarding the Buddha altar contained in his August 17, 2010 motion (Docket No. 48) is denied. Dated: September 15, 2010 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, 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?