Davis v. Kelso et al
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Additional Motion for Injunctive Relief 22 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/2/2011. Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 10 , 11 , 12 and 13 are DENIED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CHARLES T. DAVIS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01184-LJO-GBC (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 19)
v.
CLARK J. KELSO, et. al.,
13
ORDER DENYING ADDITIONAL MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 22)
Defendants.
14
/
15
I.
Procedural History
16
Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with
18
Disabilities Act). This action was filed on July 1, 2010. (Doc. 1). On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff
19
filed two motions for injunctive relief. (Docs. 10, 11). On November 9, 2010, and November 29,
20
2010, Plaintiff filed renewed motions for emergency injunctive relief. (Docs. 12, 13). On May 13,
21
2011, an order was issued to file an additional preliminary injunction that was erroneously filed in
22
another case. (Doc. 23). On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an additional morion for preliminary
23
injunction which was filed in this case on May 13, 2011. (Docs. 22, 23). Plaintiff is currently
24
housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) and the events that give rise to the current requests
25
for injunction occurred while a prisoner at PVSP. The matter was referred to a United States
26
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
27
On May 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which
28
1
1
was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and
2
Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and
3
Recommendations on May 27, 2011. (Doc. 25).
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
5
de novo review of this case. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s additional motion for injunctive
6
relief filed on October 4, 2010, which duplicates the motion for injunctive relief for pain medication
7
filed on September 16, 2010. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
8
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 10, 2011, is adopted in full; and
11
2.
Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 16, 2010 (Docs.
12
10, 11), October 4, 2010 (Doc. 22), November 9, 2010 (Doc. 12), and November 29,
13
2010 (Doc. 13), are DENIED.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
b9ed48
June 2, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?