WILKINS v. GONZALES

No. 2:16-cv-0347 KJM KJN P.

KEENAN WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. PAUL GONZALES, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Keenan Wilkins, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Paul Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

S. Pulley, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Couch, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Swarthout, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Chaiken, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Jones, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Vasquez, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

Hurtz, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 18, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 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 18, 2014, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 35) is denied.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases