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)

Download PDF
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

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?