Rotroff v. Ahlin, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 4 , 5 and 17 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/29/14. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DENIS K. ROTROFF, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 Case No. 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. PAM AHLIN, et al., ECF Nos. 4, 5, and 17 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Denis K. Rotroff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 5, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations 22 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 4) be denied, 23 without prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s motion regarding the security requirement (ECF No. 5) be 24 denied as moot. (ECF No. 17.) Neither party has responded. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 1 1 analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 5, 2014, are adopted in full 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 4) is DENIED, 4 and 5 6 without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion seeking a waiver of the security requirement (ECF No. 7 5) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 29, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?