UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 30, 2011
KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI, PLAINTIFF,
MAURICE JUNIOUS, ET AL.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS (DOC. 15)
Plaintiff Krzysztof Wolinski ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2010 and November 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions construed as motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Docs. 2, 8. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within eighteen days. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
The court notes that on June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal concerning Plaintiff's perceived delays in responding to pending motions for injunctive relief. However, no final order has been filed on Plaintiff's injunctive motions. "When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandatehas issued on the appeal does not apply." Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, the court has jurisdiction to review the pending Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 11, 2011, is adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motions, filed November 9, 2010, and November 24, 2010, are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.