Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124-18/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 JAMISON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0124 KJM EFB P

vs.

BAILLIE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, 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 September 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed 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. 

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

/////

1

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 153 Filed 03/21/12 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

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

On July 27, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation regarding plaintiff’s requests for

injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 114, 118 &122). The court has reviewed the stipulation and also

finds it appropriate. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 22, 2011, are adopted in

full; 

2. Defendants’ August 22, 2011 motion to dismiss is denied as moot;

3. The parties’ stipulation regarding injunctive relief (ECF No. 122) is adopted;

and

4. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 104, 114 & 118) are denied

as moot.

DATED: March 21, 2012. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 153 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2