Ahdom v. Lopez et al

Filing 186

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motions to Take Judicial Notice, and Motion for TRO/Supplement to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/29/2016. 165 , 169 , 174 , 180 , 182 , 183 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

BILAL AHDOM,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, MOTIONS TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND MOTION FOR
TRO/SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Docs. 165, 169, 174, 180, 182, 183)

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate

21

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) motion for a preliminary injunction against

23

Defendant Ashby, (Doc. 165); (2) motion to take judicial notice of documents in support of his

24

motion, (Doc. 169); (3) second request to take judicial notice of documents in support of his

25

motion, (Doc. 174); (4) request for a temporary restraining order and supplement to his pending

26

request for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 180); and (5) third request to take judicial notice of

27

documents in support of his motion, (Doc. 182). On September 14, 2016, following careful

28

consideration of these filings and Defendant Ashby’s response, the Magistrate Judge issued

1

Findings and Recommendations that all of the aforementioned motions and requests be denied.

2

(Doc. 183.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

3

that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) On

4

September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 185.)

5

This Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections.

6

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

7

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

8

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record

9

and proper analysis.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13

The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 14, 2016 (Doc. 183),
are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2.

14

Plaintiff’s motions and requests to take judicial notice of documents (Docs. 169,
174, 182), are DENIED;

15

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 165), is DENIED; and

16

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or supplement to the

17

pending motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 180), is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: September 29, 2016

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE