Miller v. Akanno et al

Filing 49

ORDER Adopting 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS' and DENYING Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/3/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GERALD LEE MILLER, JR.,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

DR. J. AKANNO, M.D.,

14

Case No. 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO (PC)

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

(Doc. 29 and 38)
15
16

Plaintiff Gerald Lee Miller, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

17 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 22, 2012. This action for
18 damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant J. Akanno,
19 M.D. (“Defendant”), for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care under the Eighth
20 Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and
23 Recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief related to
24 medical care be denied. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on August 28, 2014; Defendant did not
25 file a response. Local Rule 304(b), (d).
26

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

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

Plaintiff’s challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s authority to issue findings and

1

2 recommendations is frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); Local Rules
3 302(c)(17), 304(a), and his other arguments are unavailing. This action is proceeding against
4 Defendant for his past involvement in Plaintiff’s medical care at Kern Valley State Prison, and
5 Plaintiff lacks entitlement to seek prospective relief in this action regarding his current medical
6 needs at California State Prison-Corcoran.1 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island
7 Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
8 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964,
9 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 1, 2014, is adopted in full;
and

13

2.

14

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on May 27, 2014, is
DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

17

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 3, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s argument that he has a pending motion to amend to add a doctor at his current prison is moot in light of
the denial of that motion on the ground that the claim Plaintiff sought to add is not related to the claim in this action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.

2