Ehringer v. State of California
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/29/16 ORDERING that plainiff's 5 Motion for Release is DENIED. (Benson, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ORION S. EHRINGER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0985 KJM AC P
v.
ORDER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate now in Metropolitan State Hospital in
17
18
Norwalk, California, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
19
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
20
and Local Rule 302.
On March 1, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
21
22
which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
23
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed
24
objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
25
26
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
27
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
28
/////
1
1
1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
2
supported by the record and by the proper analysis.1
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 1, 2016, are adopted in full;
5
and
6
7
2. Plaintiff’s motion for release (ECF No. 5) is denied.
DATED: March 29, 2016
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The court construes the complete sentence on page 9, line 20, as a reiteration of the
recommendation that petitioner’s motion for release be denied rather than as a ruling on the
motion.
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?