Peacock v. Horowitz

Full title: RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 31, 2015

2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015)

Opinion

RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendant. No. 2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 31, 2015

          ORDER

          TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 February 18, 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 twenty-one days. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

         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 February 18, 2015, are adopted in full; and

         2. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Horowitz (ECF No. 16) is denied.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.