From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 6, 2006
1:05-cv-01470-OWW-SMS-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2006)

Opinion

1:05-cv-01470-OWW-SMS-P.

August 6, 2006


Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 13), Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1).


Plaintiff Lionell Rose ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 72-302.

On March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On July 6, 2006, after obtaining an extension of time, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 31, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, attached to his complaint filed on June 8, 2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rose v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 6, 2006
1:05-cv-01470-OWW-SMS-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2006)
Case details for

Rose v. Woodford

Case Details

Full title:LIONELL ROSE, Plaintiff, v. JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2006

Citations

1:05-cv-01470-OWW-SMS-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2006)