Burgos v. Cate et al

Filing 40

AMENDED ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/16/2011 ADOPTING 32 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 13 , 14 , 15 and 24 Motions for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING 37 Motion for Reconsideration as moot. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

AMENDED ORDER

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

Eastern District of California local rules.

20

On September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

21

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

22

objections within a specified time. Plaintiff submitted untimely objections to the findings and

23

recommendations on October 3, 2011, which were received by the court and filed after his

24

request for additional time to do so was denied by Order dated September 30, 2011. Although

25

the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s September 2, 2011 findings and recommendations by

26

Order filed October 27, 2011, Plaintiff subsequently filed, on November 10, 2011, a Motion for
1

1

Reconsideration (ECF No. 37) that challenges the Magistrate Judge’s September 30, 2011

2

decision which denied Plaintiff’s extension request. Given the pending Motion for

3

Reconsideration, this court decided to go ahead and review Plaintiff’s previously filed objections

4

before otherwise addressing the reconsideration request.

5

of his objections, and has considered the same. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, the court

6

finds that they do not change its previous October 27, 2011 Order adopting the findings and

7

recommendations. The Court will therefore reiterate its prior ruling:

Regardless, the court notes the receipt

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

9

304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

10

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

11

proper analysis.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The findings and recommendations filed September 2, 2011, are adopted

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. 13, 14, 15, 24) are

3.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and

14

in full; and

15
16
17
18
19

denied.

recommendations, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is denied as moot.
Dated: December 16, 2011

20
21
22

________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
2