(PC) Jones v. Wong et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/28/2017 ADOPTING in FULL #34 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING #32 , #21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO. Upon reconsideration, the magistrate judge's 9/12/2017 #41 Order denying appointment of counsel is AFFIRMED. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR.,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0734 GEB AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAM WONG, 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.

20

On August 21, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 34. Neither

23

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file

24

and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate

25

judge’s analysis.

26

On September 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed an order denying plaintiff’s request for

27

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff has filed objections to the order. ECF No. 46.

28

When a party objects to magistrate judge’s order, the order shall be upheld unless it is “clearly
1

1

erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. 303(f). Upon review of the entire

2

file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous

3

or contrary to law.

4

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 21, 2017 (ECF No. 34), are adopted in

6

full and plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (ECF Nos.

7

21, 32) are denied.

8
9
10

2. Upon reconsideration, the magistrate judge’s September 12, 2017 order denying
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 41) is affirmed.
Dated: September 28, 2017

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