Davis v. Runnels

Full title: CHARLES T. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)

Opinion

CHARLES T. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 4, 2013

          ORDER

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         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 July 29, 2013, 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. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

         The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

         ORDERED that:

         1. The findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2013, are adopted in full; and

         2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 82, is granted as to defendants Miranda and Runnels, and denied as to defendants Amero, Hougland, Von Rader, and Simmerson.