Jones v. Toft et al

Filing 156

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/5/2013 ADOPTING, in full, 146 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 135 , 139 Motions for Injunctive Relief; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to send a copy of 142 Expert Report to the plaintiff; DENYING 149 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations construed as a Request for Reconsideration. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANTHONY JONES,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.

12
13

No. 2:11-cv-0192 MCE EFB P

Defendants.

11

TOFT, et al.,

14

/

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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 14, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

19
20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the

22

date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

23

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

24
25

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

26

entire
1

1

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

2

proper analysis.

3
4

Plaintiff complains that he has not seen the report authored by the court-appointed
expert. The court will direct the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff a copy of the report.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2013, are adopted in full;

7

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Dckt. Nos. 135 and 139) are denied;

8

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the expert report

9
10

appearing at Docket No. 142.
4. To the extent the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

11

Recommendations (ECF No. 149) may be construed as a request for reconsideration of the

12

magistrate judge’s ruling with regard to Dr. Fee’s impartiality as an expert, that request is

13

denied. The Court concurs with the magistrate judge analysis that Dr. Fee should not be

14

disqualified in that regard.

15 Date: August 05, 2013
16 _____________________________________
17
18

___________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2