Williams v. Anderson et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/26/12 ADOPTING in full 45 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 50 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING 27 , 37 , and 41 Motions for Preliminary Injunction. No further motions for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's 6/28/12 Order shall be considered. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

12

No. 2:11-CV-0431-JAM-CMK-P

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

HIGGINS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

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

19

Eastern District of California local rules.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s June 28, 2012, order.1

20
21

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge’s order shall be

22

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

23

finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary

24
1

25
26

Initially, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal challenging the June 28,
2012, order. That appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The mandate was filed
in this court on August 31, 2012. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was filed while the
appeal was pending.
1

1

to law. The June 28, 2012, order will, therefore, be affirmed.

2

On July 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein

3

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

4

within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

proper analysis.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 50) is denied;

11

2.

No further motions for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s June 28,

12

2012, order shall be considered;

13

3.

The findings and recommendations filed July 6, 2012, are adopted in full;

4.

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 27, 37, and 41) are denied.

14

and

15
16

DATED:

October 26, 2012

17

/s/ John A. Mendez

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2