Pope v. McDonald et al
Filing
35
ORDER adopting in full 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/7/15. Plaintiff's request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH POPE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-1896 KJM DAD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
BLOUSER,
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 September 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and
22
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the
23
findings and recommendations and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s objections.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court
26
finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
27
The court writes separately to note that both parties also address the magistrate judge’s
28
order granting plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off and extending the deadlines for
1
1
completion of discovery and filing dispositive motions. This court will not address the issues
2
related to that order, which lie in the sound discretion of the magistrate judge. This order is
3
without prejudice to the right of any party to seek reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order
4
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 4, 2015, are adopted in full.
7
2. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect
8
phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is denied.
9
DATED: October 7, 2015.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?