Masterson v. Killen et al

Filing 125

ORDER Adopting 113 Findings and Receommendations and Denying 85 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL MASTERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB

v.
SUZANNE KILLEN et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 85, 113)

16
17
Plaintiff Daniel Masterson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18
19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation

21
22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and other relief related to certain items of

23

personal and legal property be denied, particularly because the motion is not related to plaintiff’s

24

claims presented in this action. (Doc. No. 113.) The findings and recommendations were served

25

on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days.

26

More than thirty days have passed, and no objections to the findings and recommendations have

27

been filed.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The October 19, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 113) are adopted in

6

full; and
2. Plaintiff’s application for injunctive and other relief (Doc. No. 85) is denied.1

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

January 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that plaintiff has claimed that prison officials at CSATF confiscated and failed
to forward to plaintiff two boxes of legal and personal property that include documents which
plaintiff anticipates he will need to oppose any summary judgment motion filed in the future by
the defendants in this action. (Doc. No. 85.) Counsel for defendants are advised that if plaintiff’s
forecast comes to fruition and he is able to make some showing of his need for those documents
to oppose summary judgment, the court will likely require defense counsel to inquire as to the
whereabouts and handling of plaintiff’s property. It may be appropriate for defense counsel to do
so now in anticipation of such an order.
2