Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bradford v. Marchak, 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180418884 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Doc No. 39, 51, 54, 70, 71, 268] LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendants Marchak, Grewal, Depovic, and Clausell for the unnecessary and wanton infl
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Doc No. 39, 51, 54, 70, 71, 268]

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendants Marchak, Grewal, Depovic, and Clausell for the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 21.)

On April 2, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending the denial of Plaintiff's several motions for preliminary injunction seeking to stay his court-ordered involuntary medication. (Doc. No. 268.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 290.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff's objections raise no new issues not properly addressed by the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The April 2, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 268) are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 39, 51, 54, 70, 71), are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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