Mitchell v. DaViga, et al.

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 54 Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Restraining Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG

v.
CHAVEZ and SGT. SHELDON,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN
EMERGENCY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 54, 59)

16
17

Plaintiff Corey Mitchell, is appeared pro se1 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18
19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California

20

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and in his complaint has alleged a claim

21

under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Chavez and Sergeant Sheldon for failure to

22

protect plaintiff from a known risk of harm. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and

23

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

24

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

25
26
27
28

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for an emergency restraining order be
1

Plaintiff appeared pro se at the time when he filed the documents relevant to this order. Since
then, however, the court has issued an order appointing counsel on his behalf. (See Doc. No. 73.)
1

1

denied. (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

2

contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within twenty days. (Id.) The time to file

3

objections to those findings and recommendations has passed, and no objections have been filed.

4

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

5

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

6

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

7

Accordingly,

8

1. The November 1, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in

9
10
11
12

full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency restraining order (Doc. No. 54) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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