Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012-37/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HAVILAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM 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 pursuant to 

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

On August 7, 2015, 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 within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections 

to the findings and recommendations.1

////

1

 In his objections, plaintiff references his motions for interlocutory order, which were filed after 

the July 23, 2015 motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s motions for interlocutory order were not 

addressed in the August 7, 2015 findings and recommendations, but were subsequently addressed 

by separate findings and recommendations issued on August 18, 2015. Therefore, the court 

declines to address the objections based on plaintiff’s motions for interlocutory order. 

1

 

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 206 Filed 09/29/15 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

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 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 August 07, 2015, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s July 23, 2015 motion for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 190) is denied.

/mitc3012.805

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2015. __________________________ 

ROBERT C. JONES

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 206 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2