Benson v. Davis Enterprise Newspaper et al

Filing 153

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/21/12 ADOPTING in full 140 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING as moot 132 Motion to Dismiss; ADOPTING 122 Stipulation for Injunctive Relief; and DENYING as moot 104 , 114 , and 118 Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JEREMY JAMISON,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-10-0124 KJM EFB P

BAILLIE, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights

16
17

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

18

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

19

On September 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and

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 fourteen days.

22

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

23
24

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 recommendations to

2

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

On July 27, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation regarding plaintiff’s requests for

4

injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 114, 118 &122). The court has reviewed the stipulation and also

5

finds it appropriate.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 22, 2011, are adopted in

8

full;

9

2. Defendants’ August 22, 2011 motion to dismiss is denied as moot;

10
11

3. The parties’ stipulation regarding injunctive relief (ECF No. 122) is adopted;
and

12

4. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 104, 114 & 118) are denied

13

as moot.

14

DATED: March 21, 2012.

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2