Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01701-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM CONSIGLIO,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-1701-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director of

the California Department of 

Corrections,

Defendant. 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 General

Order No. 262.

On October 27, 2005, 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

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 64 Filed 12/21/05 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

1 Plaintiff also purports to bring a motion for

reconsideration but such a motion is inapposite in the context of

findings and recommendations, and will be construed as part of

his objections. Although defendant purported to have filed

objections to the findings and recommendations, the filing was

actually directed to the order portion of the court’s October 27,

2005 filing and the magistrate judge has issued a modification of

the order pursuant to defendant’s request.

2

within twenty days. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time

to file objections to the findings and recommendations, and has

done so.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 filed October 27,

2005 are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2005 “motion for permanent

or temporary injunction . . .,” construed as a motion for

preliminary injunction, is denied.

Dated: December 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 64 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2