Cofield v. Unknown

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/2014 ORDERING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED in full; Claims against defendants Robertson and Garbutt are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and claims against defendants Young, Alkier, Bauer, and Maydole are dismissed as improperly joined; and plaintiff's 24 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT E. COFIELD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-3060-KJM-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNKNOWN,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

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

19

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

20

On February 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

23

the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

25

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

26

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully

27

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

28

and by the proper analysis.
1

1

`Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 19, 2014, are adopted in full;

3

2. Claims against defendants Robertson and Garbutt be dismissed from this action for

4

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and claims against defendants Young,

5

Alkier, Bauer, and Maydole are dismissed as improperly joined; and

6
7

3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 24) is denied.
DATED: March 31, 2014.

8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2