Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01896-5/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH POPE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BLOUSER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1896 KJM DAD 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 as provided 

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

 On September 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. 

 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 proper analysis. 

 The court writes separately to note that both parties also address the magistrate judge’s 

order granting plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off and extending the deadlines for 

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 35 Filed 10/08/15 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

completion of discovery and filing dispositive motions. This court will not address the issues 

related to that order, which lie in the sound discretion of the magistrate judge. This order is 

without prejudice to the right of any party to seek reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order 

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 4, 2015, are adopted in full. 

 2. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect 

phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is denied. 

DATED: October 7, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 35 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2