Rhodes v. Robinson, et al
Filing
238
ORDER ADOPTING 230 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING 214 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/13/2011. (Jessen, A)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
KAVIN M. RHODES,
CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05018-LJO-DLB PC
4
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5
v.
6
M. ROBINSON, et al.,
7
(DOC. 230)
Defendants.
8
/
9
10
Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes (“plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
11
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for
12
temporary restraining order, construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 214. The
13
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
14
Local Rule 302.
15
On March 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was
16
served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and
17
Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the
18
Findings and Recommendations on April 14, 2011. Doc. 235.
19
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de
20
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and
21
Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 23, 2011, is adopted in full; and
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, construed as a motion for
24
25
preliminary injunctive relief, is denied.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated:
b9ed48
May 13, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?