Filed: Mar. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 52) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief restricting Defendant Castillo (and other employees) from entering the building or the area surrounding the building in which Plaintiff is housed. (Doc. 50.) I
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 52) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief restricting Defendant Castillo (and other employees) from entering the building or the area surrounding the building in which Plaintiff is housed. (Doc. 50.) In..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 52)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief restricting Defendant Castillo (and other employees) from entering the building or the area surrounding the building in which Plaintiff is housed. (Doc. 50.) In particular, Plaintiff alleged that on December 24, 2011, Castillo threatened to poison Plaintiff's food. Id. at 6. However, Plaintiff claimed also that prison medical providers assured him that they would not allow this to occur and that he accepted theses assurances. Id.
On January 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that the request be denied. (Doc. 52) The Magistrate Judge found that, though Plaintiff had discussed his concern that he may be irreparably harmed if the injunction was not imposed, he failed to address any of the other required elements for an injunction. Id. at 2. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge found that the claim of irreparable harm was not credible given the amount of time that had passed between the threat of harm and the filing of the motion. Id. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for injunctive relief be denied. Id. at 3.
Though the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff 14 days to file his objections to the recommendation (Doc. 52 at 3), he did not do so. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2012, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
