Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

(PC) Baker v. Moreno,, 1:16-cv-01758-AWI-SKO (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171212786 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 23, 25) ANTHONY W. ISHII , District Judge . Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 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 302. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief for access to his le
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 23, 25)

Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 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 302. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief for access to his legal and personal property on October 5, 2017. (Doc. 23.) On October 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff's motion for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 25.) The Findings and Recommendation was served that same date and allowed for filing of objections within twenty-one days. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than double the time allowed, Plaintiff has not filed any objections. However, though not required, defense counsel submitted a declaration explaining the circumstances behind Plaintiff's separation from his property and relaying assurances received from the Litigation Coordinators at the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility and California Health Care Facility to unite Plaintiff with his property as expeditiously as possible.1 (Doc. 26.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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, issued on October 20, 2017 (Doc. 25), is adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, filed on October 5, 2017 (Doc. 23) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court appreciates defense counsel's efforts to rectify this situation.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer