Houston v. Eldridge et al
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 01/05/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 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
WILLIAM HOUSTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-2561 WBS KJN P
v.
ORDER
L. ELDRIDGE, 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 December 12, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
21
which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2016, are adopted in full; and
3
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 9) is denied.
4
Dated: January 5, 2017
5
6
7
8
/hous2561.804
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?