Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSENGER, et al.,

Defendants. 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 July 13, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections

to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has included in his objections a request for

reconsideration of the separate order filed by the magistrate judge on July 13, 2006. 

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 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to be supported by the

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 51 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

record and by proper analysis. Upon review of the file, the court also finds that the rulings

contained in the magistrate judge’s separate order filed July 13, 2006, are not clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See Local Rule 72-303(f).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2006 (#45) are adopted in

full;

2. Plaintiff’s January 23, 2006 application for a temporary restraining order (#16)

is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s April 24, 2006 motion for appointment of three-judge panel (#26) is

denied; and

4. The rulings contained in the magistrate judge’s order filed July 13, 2006 (#44)

are affirmed.

Dated: August 11, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 51 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2