Payan v. Tate et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Injunction Relief, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/6/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

MICHAEL J. PAYAN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
H. TATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00807 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(Document 35)

16
17

Plaintiff Michael J. Payan (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on May 28, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive

19

relief on May 2, 2014. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20
21
22

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and

23

contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. On October 1, 2014,
24
25
26
27

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
3
4

objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and
by proper analysis.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as moot because, in
his reply, Plaintiff admitted that the relief he sought was moot. Specifically, Plaintiff had

5

requested that he no longer be treated by Defendant Tate. However, because Plaintiff had been
6
7
8
9

transferred and was assigned to a new primary care doctor, his request was moot.
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his request was not moot because the damage
caused by Defendants continues despite his transfer. He cites deficiencies in record-keeping and

10

argues that they are impacting his current health care needs. This does not change the fact,

11

however, that he is no longer receiving treatment from Defendant Tate. His request for relief

12

remains moot.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15
16
17
18

The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 26, 2014, are adopted in full;

2.
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 22) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 6, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2