De-Luis-Conti et al v. Cates et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/15/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GRAHAM ROGER LEE DE LUIS CONTI, CASE No.

11

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff,

12
v.

14
15
16

1:10-cv-01852-LJO-MJS (PC)

(ECF Nos. 35, 36)
M. CATES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Graham Roger Lee De Luis Conti, a state prisoner incarcerated at the

21 California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (“CSATF”), is proceeding pro se
22 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
23

(Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court
25
26

for the Eastern District of California.

27
-1-

1

On July 19, 2012, findings and recommendations denying Plaintiff’s motion for

2

temporary restraining order without prejudice (Findings and Recommendations Denying

3

Mot., ECF No. 36) were filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

4
5
6

motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 35) be denied without prejudice as he
failed to provide facts which would enable a finding that he is in need of and entitled to

7 injunctive relief. The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due within fourteen
8 days. The fourteen day deadline has passed without any party having filed objections or
9 seeking an extension of time to do so.
10

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

11
12
13

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

14 proper analysis.
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

17

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed July 19, 2012,
in full, and

18
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 35) is DENIED

19
20

without prejudice.

21
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated:
25 66h44d

August 15, 2012

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

26
27
-2-