Howard v. Wang, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

11

CASE NO.

Plaintiff,

(ECF Numbers #23 & #25)

v.

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Defendants.

12

J. WANG, et al.,

14

1:10-cv-01783-AWI-GBC (PC)

/

15
16

ORDER

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed January 13,
2011. (ECF No. 16.)
On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order.
(ECF No. 23.) In that Motion, Plaintiff requested that Defendants be required to provide

24
25
26

adequate medical care. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged he has been deprived of medical
care, medical appliances, and medication since August 21, 2009.

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 September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a

3

Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

4
5
6

Restraining Order be denied. (ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff
failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief.1 No objections were filed.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

proper analysis.

11
12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

and

14
15
16

The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2011, is ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:
0m8i78

December 23, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

“A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction m ust establish that he is likely to succeed on the
m erits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelim inary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am . Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City
of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting W inter v. Natural Res. Defense Council,
129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).

2