Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02661/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02661-6/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

JEREMY JONES,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2661 KJM EFB P

vs.

BALLESTEROS, 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On October 24, 2012, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and

recommendations, 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. Plaintiff has filed objections to the

findings and recommendations that discuss the order; the court construes the discussion of the

order as a motion for reconsideration. 

1

Case 2:10-cv-02661-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 01/18/13 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

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 file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

proper analysis. 

In addition, under Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s order shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the file, the magistrate judge’s

ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 24, 2012 are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant Lee is dismissed from this action without prejudice; and

3. The motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: January 18, 2013.

2

Case 2:10-cv-02661-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 2