Childs v. State of California et al
Filing
102
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/22/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 97 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING Defendants' 78 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Nelson and otherwise DENIED; and DENYING Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Court Intervention. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
E. CHILDS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-0670-TLN-EFB P
v.
ORDER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
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 pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 97.
The court has reviewed the file and the objections and finds the findings and
24
25
recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 3, 2016, (ECF No. 97), are adopted in
27
28
full;
1
1
2
3
2. Defendants’ October 13, 2015 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 78) is granted
as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Nelson and otherwise denied; and
3. Plaintiff’s May 5, 2016 motion for court intervention (ECF No. 93) is denied.
4
5
Dated: December 22, 2016
6
7
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?