King v. McDonald

Full title: JESSE KING, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 3, 2013

2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)

Opinion

JESSE KING, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 3, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2013, the assigned District Judge issued an order adopting in full findings and recommendations issued by the undersigned on May 1, 2013, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motions to amend, for summary judgment, and for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 93.) Judgment was entered on the same day. (ECF No. 94.) On July 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled "Opposition to Order of Judgment." (ECF No. 96.) On August 5, 2013, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's filing. (ECF No. 101.) On the same day, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 102.)

         After review of the document filed with the court by plaintiff on July 30, 2013 (ECF No. 96), the court finds the contents thereof too vague and conclusory to require or support further consideration of that filing by the court. Accordingly, the document will be disregarded.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the document filed by plaintiff on July 30, 2013 (ECF No. 96) is disregarded.