From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avery v. Stainer

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 28, 2021
2:18-cv-1302 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-cv-1302 JAM AC P

06-28-2021

KYLE AVERY, Plaintiff, v. M.D. STAINER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 March 26, 2021, 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. 34. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 35, to which plaintiff has responded, ECF No. 36.

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 March 26, 2021, ECF No. 34, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 28, is DENIED; and

3. Defendants shall file a response to the complaint within twenty-one days of the filing of this order.


Summaries of

Avery v. Stainer

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 28, 2021
2:18-cv-1302 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Avery v. Stainer

Case Details

Full title:KYLE AVERY, Plaintiff, v. M.D. STAINER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 28, 2021

Citations

2:18-cv-1302 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)

Citing Cases

Spencer v. Milan

He contends that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), he had an “absolute right” to voluntarily…

Spencer v. Milan

He contends that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), he had an “absolute right” to voluntarily…