Starr v. CDCR

Filing 39

ORDER Adopting 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/5/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
A. TREVINO, M.D., et al.,

15
16

1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 24.)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 4.)

Defendants.
_____________________________/

17

Robin Gillen Starr (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

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

19

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

20

On July 16, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's

21

motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the

22

findings and recommendations.

23

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

24

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

25

Court finds the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.

26

preliminary injunction must demonstrate that the party is likely to succeed on the merits, that the

27

party is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

28

1

A party seeking a

1

equities tips in the party’s favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural

2

Res. Def. Council, Inc., – U.S. – , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008); National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599

3

F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Plaintiff’s December 22, 2011 motion for a preliminary

4

injunction only alleges broad constitutional violations, along with some form of service. The

5

Winter factors are not even remotely addressed. Thus, the motion must be denied.

6

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1.

8
9

are adopted; and
2.

10
11

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 16, 2012,

Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 22, 2011, is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
0m8i78

September 5, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2