Gonzales v. Podsakoff, 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190419e21
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. No. 90, 99) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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. On January 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending th
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. No. 90, 99) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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. On January 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending tha..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. No. 90, 99)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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.
On January 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 99 at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
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, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 99) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 90) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
