Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659-43/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 

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JERRY BROWN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN 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 May 14, 2015 and on June 19, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and 

recommendations. ECF Nos. 209, 217. Both sets of findings and recommendations were served 

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

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On June 24, 2015, after receiving an 

extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the May 14, 2015 findings and recommendations. 

ECF No. 219. On June 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to 

the June 19, 2015 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 221. On June 29, 2015, plaintiff 

timely filed objections to those findings and recommendations. ECF No. 222. The motion for 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 253 Filed 02/04/16 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

extension of time will therefore be denied as unnecessary and the court has considered plaintiff’s 

June 29, 2015 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 findings and recommendations will therefore be adopted in full. 

 In both sets of findings and recommendations plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. 

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s order filed October 22, 2015, ECF No. 240, 

those requests are denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2015 are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s May 6, 2015 motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 203, is denied; 

 3. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2015 motion for extension of time, ECF No. 221, is denied as 

unnecessary; 

 4. The findings and recommendations filed June 19, 2015, are adopted in full; 

 5. Plaintiff’s May 28, 2015 motion to stay (ECF No. 212) and plaintiff’s June 11, 2015 

motion for the court to put his transfer on hold (ECF No. 215), construed as a motion for 

injunctive relief, are denied; and 

 6. The requests for appointment of counsel contained in plaintiff’s June 24, 2015 and 

June 29, 2015 objections are denied. 

DATED: February 3, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 253 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2