ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND COURT ORDERS

(Doc. Nos. 20, 24, 42, 59, 62, 64, 68)

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. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions that may be characterized as requests for various forms or for injunctive relief. (Doc. Nos. 20, 24, 42, 59.) On September 12, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 62.) Plaintiff was provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) Although untimely, plaintiff did so on October 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 70.)

Also, on September 12, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for a court order directing non-parties to allow plaintiff access to his medical file be denied. (Doc. No. 64.) Plaintiff was provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff did so on September 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 69.)

On September 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for a court order directing non-parties to assist him with discovery and prison law library access be denied. (Doc. No. 68.) Plaintiff was provided fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to those findings and recommendations, and the time for doing so has 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, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The court finds plaintiff's objections to lack merit. Regarding plaintiff's objections to the September 12, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 70), the court agrees with the assigned magistrate judge that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not parties to the present lawsuit. This action is one brought against individuals employed at Kern Valley State Prison. However plaintiff in his motion seeks an injunction against individuals employed at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, where plaintiff is now housed. To the extent plaintiff seeks to enjoin these non-parties, he must do so by pursuing a separate action. Plaintiff's objections to the September 12, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 69) suffer the same deficiency.

For these reasons:

IT IS SO ORDERED.