From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 19, 2021
2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P

07-19-2021

DAVID HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, Defendant.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a request for the “rules of the court regarding ADR referrals.” ECF No. 17.

This action was referred to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as part of the Post-Screening ADR Project. ECF No. 16. There are no Local Rules specific to the Post-Screening ADR Project, and the information regarding participation is contained in the July 2, 2021 Order referring this case to ADR.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for the rules related to ADR referrals, ECF No. 17, is DENIED.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 19, 2021
2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Son

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 19, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2021)