Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03342/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03342-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON D. MEADOR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-3342 LKK GGH P

vs.

M. HAMMER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,1 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 January 18, 2012, 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 fourteen days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.2

1

 Plaintiff, however, has been proceeding with counsel as of January 25, 2012. See

docket entry # 18. 

2

 Although entered in the docket of this case several days after the filing of the findings

and recommendations, plaintiff pro se’s “affidavit... in support of [his] motion for preliminary

injunction” cannot be construed as objections as the affidavit was filed, by (generous)

1

Case 2:11-cv-03342-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 04/13/12 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

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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The court notes that by order issued on March 12, 2012, ECF No. 23, the

magistrate judge in this case discharged the findings and recommendations filed on January 18,

2012, ECF No. 13, insofar as those findings and recommendations directed plaintiff to provide a

fully completed in forma pauperis application. Thus, the findings and recommendations filed

January 18, 2012, are adopted, except insofar as they are superseded by the magistrate judge’s

March 12, 2012 order. ; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on December 16,

2011 (docket # 2), is denied.

DATED: April 12, 2012.

application of the mailbox rule (Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385

(1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009)), more than three weeks prior to

issuance of the findings and recommendations. Moreover, counsel who has been substituted in

for plaintiff has not filed objections.

2

Case 2:11-cv-03342-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 2