Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00081/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00081-7/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

SHANNON SORRELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS 

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION

(Doc. Nos. 21, 23)

Plaintiff Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this 

matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On July 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a court order to receive medical treatment be denied. 

(Doc. No. 23.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 

that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed, and 

plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations.

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 09/14/16 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Given the foregoing:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on July 19, 2016 (Doc. No. 23) are adopted in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for “affirmative action” (Doc. No. 21) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2