Gray v. Johnson et al
Filing
228
ORDER Adopting 201 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Plaintiff's 192 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, without Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANA GRAY,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. V. ROMERO et al.,
Defendants.
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. Nos. 192, 201)
17
18
19
Plaintiff Dana Gray is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil
20
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
21
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On April 13, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
23
recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied, without
24
prejudice. (Doc. No. 201.) The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to
25
the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has passed, and no
26
objections have been filed.
27
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
28
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
1
1
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
2
Accordingly,
3
1. The April 13, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 201) are adopted in full;
4
5
and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 192) is denied, without
6
7
8
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?