Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427-5/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

 Concurrently with his objections, plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of 1

time. As his objections were timely filed, that request is denied as unnecessary.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2427 LKK EFB P

vs.

BLAUSER, 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 Rule 302. 

On August 31, 2011, 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 from the

date the findings and recommendations were served. After an extension of time, plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

////

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 29 Filed 09/29/11 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 22) filed August 31, 2011, are

ADOPTED in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 26, 2011 request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 27)

is DENIED as moot;

3. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2011 motions to appoint counsel and for removal from state

custody to federal (Dkt. No. 20) are DENIED. The motion to appoint counsel is DENIED for

the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations. The motion for removal is DENIED for

the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations regarding the request for a preliminary

injunction.

4. Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining order and for preliminary

injunction (Dkt. Nos. 2 and 21) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 29 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 2