Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anaya v. Campbell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 29, 2009

RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 28, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In his June 12, 2009, objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to amend. Because the order denying plaintiff's motion to amend was filed on June 10, 2009, plaintiff could not have had this order when he prepared his request for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the court finds that plaintiff's request for reconsideration contained in his June 12, 2009, objections is addressed to the June 10, 2009, order.

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 28, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's April 20, 2009, and April 30, 2009 (nos. 166 and 173), motions for injunctive relief are denied; and

3. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed June 10, 2009, is affirmed.

20090629

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.