Puckett v. Vogel et al

Filing 126

ORDER Adopting 125 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order re 81 , 107 , 114 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/21/16. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC) DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS v. VOGEL, et al., Defendants. (Docs. 81, 107, 114, 125) 14 15 16 Plaintiff, Durrell Anthony Puckett, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on claims against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, Dean, Bolander, Abadia, Lockhart, Zamora, Sisneros, Campos, and Callow for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff filed motions seeking temporary restraining orders and transfer from CSPCorcoran to CSP-Sacramento. (Docs. 81, 107, 114.) On September 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny both motions. (Doc. 125.) The Findings and Recommendations was served on that same date and provided thirty days for the parties to 1 1 file objections. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than the allowed time, no objections were filed.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 4 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 2, 2016 (Doc. 125), is adopted in full; and 7 2. Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders, filed on December 28, 2015 (Doc. 8 81), April 21, 2016 (Doc. 107), and May 16, 2016 (Doc. 114) are DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: September 21, 2016 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 It is noted that, since issuance of the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has been moved to CSP-Sacramento. 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?