Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03008/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03008-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JAMES WELK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-03008 MCE AC P

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 Rule 302.

On September 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and 

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff 

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 

ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not objected to the findings and recommendations, but has objected to 

the screening order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). ECF No. 20.

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. With respect to the objections to 

the screening order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to nondispositive orders issued by Magistrate Judges and requires that the District Judge “modify or set 

Case 2:18-cv-03008-MCE-AC Document 23 Filed 02/05/20 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

27

28

2

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The September 30, 

2019 order of the Magistrate Judge is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the objections 

will be overruled.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2019 (ECF No. 13), are 

adopted in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice.

3. The objections to the September 30, 2019 screening order (ECF No. 20) are overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-03008-MCE-AC Document 23 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2