Armstrong v. Hedgpeth, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 44 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 32 , 33 , 35 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/2/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

11
12
13

1:11-cv-00761-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 44.)

vs.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Docs. 32, 33, 35.)

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Brady K. Armstrong (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 21, 2013, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

21

that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff was

22

provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty

23

days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and

24

recommendations.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

26

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

27

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1.

3
4

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
November 21, 2013, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2.

5

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 5, 2013, July
10, 2013, and July 15, 2013 are DENIED.

6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 2, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2