West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 50

ORDER Adopting 40 Findings and Recommendation Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request to Dismiss his Request for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/31/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

GERALD A. WEST,

CASE NO.

1:09-cv-01277-LJO-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
v.
RECOMMENDATION
DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, etal, R E L I E F A N D O R D E R D E N Y I N G
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO DISMISS HIS
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendants.
/ (ECF Nos. 40 & 47)

16
17
18

ORDER

19

Plaintiff Gerald A. West (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended

21

Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 for failure

22

to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 25 & 27.)

23

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on March 24, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) In it,

24
25
26

Plaintiff appears to describe the facts of this action, subsequent altercations, retaliation,
and due process violations, among other things.

27
1

1

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a

3

Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief

4
5

be denied. (ECF No. 40.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet the legal

6

prerequisites for injunctive relief and described different causes of actions in different

7

institutions not being dealt with here. Plaintiff failed to file an objection even after receiving

8

an extension of time to do so. (ECF No. 46.) Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion asking that

9

the Court dismiss his request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff states that he

10

intends to file an amended complaint and will include a request for injunctive relief with it.1

11
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has

12
13

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

14

Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by

15

proper analysis.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

The Findings and Recommendation, filed June 24, 2011, is ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED; and

3.

Plaintiff’s Request to withdraw the Motion is DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
b9ed48

23

August 31, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff is free to file another request for injunctive relief or include a such
a request in an am ended com plaint regardless of this Order.

2