Filed: Apr. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . This prisoner's pro se civil rights case was originally referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On September 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) recommending that plaintiff's motion for an injunction directing defendants to schedule cataract surgery for plaintiff within 30 days (Dkt. No. 33) be denied.
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . This prisoner's pro se civil rights case was originally referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On September 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) recommending that plaintiff's motion for an injunction directing defendants to schedule cataract surgery for plaintiff within 30 days (Dkt. No. 33) be denied. ..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
This prisoner's pro se civil rights case was originally referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On September 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) recommending that plaintiff's motion for an injunction directing defendants to schedule cataract surgery for plaintiff within 30 days (Dkt. No. 33) be denied.
On or about February March 2, 2018, plaintiff Houston Douglas filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 52. Defendants filed a response on March 16, 2018 (Dkt. No. 54), and plaintiff filed a reply on March 27, 2018 (Dkt. No. 55). The Court has found oral argument unnecessary.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon de novo review, and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, plaintiff's motion for an injunction is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36), plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 33) is denied1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
