Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction 18 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/7/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Document 18)

16
17

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the action on August 16,

20
21
22
23

2012. On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Permanent Injunction. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 3, 2013, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s

24
25
26
27

Motion be denied. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

28
1

1
2

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and by proper analysis.

3
4

Plaintiff’s objections are based on his contention that the Defendants and time period at
issue in his motion are properly before the Court in his First Amended Complaint. However, by

5

separate Findings and Recommendations, the Court has dismissed these Defendants and all
6
7
8
9

claims subsequent to October 2011. The Magistrate Judge was correct in concluding that the
Court does not have jurisdiction to issue the requested relief, even if he would be entitled to such
relief.
Plaintiff also raises a Type 2 diabetes diagnosis, but this does not alter the fact that that

10
11

Court does not have jurisdiction over the time period, or Defendants, at issue. Plaintiff may file

12

a new action to raise these issues.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 3, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;

15

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction is

16

DENIED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
DEAC_Signature-END:

22

0m8i788

23
24
25
26
27
28
2