Mester v. Dickinson et al

Filing 107

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/11 ADOPTING 98 and 101 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING 53 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 90 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's 2009 claims against defendant Miller are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's 1996 and 2000 claims against defendant Miller are DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED. (Meuleman, A)

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
12
13
14

vs.
MILLER and REED,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

No. 2:09-cv-3307 KJM KJN P

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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On August 8, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

addressing defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which were served on all

21

parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and

22

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the

23

findings and recommendations.

24

In addition, on September 7, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and

25

recommendations addressing a motion for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff; these findings and

26

recommendations also were served on all parties and notified the parties that any objections were
1

1

to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to these findings and

2

recommendations.

3

The court thus presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

4

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

5

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

6

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds both sets of findings and

7

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2011, are adopted in full;

10

2. Defendant Miller’s motion to dismiss (ECF 53) is granted;

11

3. Defendant Miller’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 53) is granted;

12

4. Plaintiff’s 2009 claims against defendant Miller are dismissed with prejudice;

13

5. Plaintiff’s 1996 and 2000 claims against defendant Miller are dismissed as

14

time-barred;

15
16

6. The findings and recommendations filed September 7, 2011 (ECF 101) are
adopted in full; and

17
18

7. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF 90) is denied.
DATED: September 26, 2011.

19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

/mest3307.801c

2