(PC) Gleason v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 31, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00369·Unknown

Opinion

THOMAS LEE GLEASON, JR., No. 2:20-cv-00369-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas Lee Gleason, Jr. (“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 June 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 22, 2020 (ECF No. 10), are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: August 30, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Gleason v. CDCR, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(PC) Gleason v. CDCR ((PC) Gleason v. CDCR) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)