Mester v. Dickinson et al

Filing 104

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/21/2011 ADOPTING 66 and 88 Findings and Recommendations, with the exception of footnote 1 on page 2 and the language appearing on page 3, line 15 through page 4, line 3. Pltf's 65 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 78 & 80 Motions for Injunctive Relief are DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MORRIS MESTER,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. Civ S-09-3307 KJM KJN P

MILLER and REED,
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 April 4, 2011 and June 24, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and

19
20

recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that

21

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days.

22

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court thus presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

23
24

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

25

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

26

/////
1

1

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and ultimate

2

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. However, the court

3

declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s advisory discussion of the potential application of the

4

All Writs Act. The case of Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112

5

(1969), cited by the magistrate judge, is the precedent applicable to resolution of plaintiff’s

6

pending motions. The court also declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s suggestions as to

7

possible future litigation strategies.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 4, 2011 and June 24, 2011, are

10

adopted, with the exception of footnote 1 on page 2 and the language appearing on page 3, line

11

15 through page 4, line 3.

12

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 65, 69, 70, 71, 74, 78 & 80)

13

are denied.

14

DATED: September 21, 2011.

15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

/mest3307.801b

2