Thornberry v. Kernan et al

Filing 101

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/24/2020 ADOPTING 99 Findings and Recommendations in full. Plaintiff's 64 motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. Plaintiff's 63 motion for summary judgment is DENIED as premature and without prejudice to renewal following the close of discovery within the time limit for fling dispositive motions set in the Court's 2/13/2020 order. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-CV-00953-TLN-DMC

v.

ORDER

J. BAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Daniel Lee Thornberry (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings

17
18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 99.) Neither

23

party filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

24
25

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

26

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

27

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28

///
1

1
2

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

The Findings and Recommendations filed February 19, 2020 (ECF No. 99), are

adopted in full;

6

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 64) is DENIED; and

7

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63) is DENIED as premature

8

and without prejudice to renewal following the close of discovery within the time limit for fling

9

dispositive motions set in the Court’s February 13, 2020, order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2020

12
13
14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2