Tubach v. Guzman

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to DENY 3 6 9 11 Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/25/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ISABEL TUBACH,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01241-AWI-SMS PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.
GUZMAN,

(Docs. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13)
13

Defendant.
/

14
15

Plaintiff, Isabel Tubach (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se

16

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

17

Complaint on July 20, 2012. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed

19

with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for violation of her federal rights. (Doc.

20

12.)

21

Plaintiff has filed four motions for temporary restraining orders that are currently before the

22

Court: (1) on July 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order against

23

Defendant M. Guzman (Doc. 3, 1st TRO, pp. 2-3, 7); (2) on August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

24

requesting “a T.R.O.” (Doc. 6, 2nd TRO, pg. 1); (3) on October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

25

requesting “a T.R.O. against Defendant M. Guzman” (Doc. 9, 3rd TRO, pg. 1); and (4) on January

26

9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting “a temporary order to restraining the Defendant, C/O M.

27

Guzman” (Doc. 11, 4th TRO, pg. 1).

28

On March 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which
1

1

was served on the parties and which contained notice that objections were to be filed within fifteen

2

days. Plaintiff did not file an objection.

3

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

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

5

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

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed

7

March 6, 2013, is adopted in full and Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders are denied

8

without prejudice.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

March 25, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2