From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jun 2, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P.

June 2, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On April 21, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

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 April 21, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) is granted;

3. This action is dismissed; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close this file.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jun 2, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2008)
Case details for

Anderson v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:SIDNEY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. M. MARTEL, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jun 2, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2008)

Citing Cases

Petrosyan v. Ali

Specifically, an inmate was required to: "(1) [seek an] informal resolution; (2) [file a] formal written…