McClintock v. Cooper et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/22/21 ADOPTING 116 Findings and Recommendations. Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED without prejudice. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed October 12, 2021, denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions, is AFFIRMED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN McCLINTOCK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 18-cv-0560 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

T. COOPER, et al.,
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 October 12, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

21

recommending that defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions be denied. (ECF No. 116.)

22

These findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties

23

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

24

(Id.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

25
26

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

27

On October 12, 2021, the magistrate judge also denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

28

(Id.) On October 28, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the October 12, 2021 order denying his
1

1

motions for sanctions. (ECF No. 117.) The court construes plaintiff’s objections as a request for

2

reconsideration.

3

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

4

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it

5

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was

6

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 12, 2021 are ADOPTED in full;

9

2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (ECF No. 109) is DENIED without

10
11
12
13
14

prejudice; and
3. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed October 12, 2021,
denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, is AFFIRMED.
Dated: November 22, 2021

15

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19

Mc560.jo

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2