Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 94

ORDER adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying MOTION and referring matter to Magistrate Judge 80 , 85 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON BULLOCK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG

v.
BROCK SHEELA, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
MOTION, AND REFERRING MATTER TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 80, 85)

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth

19

amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to

20

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 1, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21
22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion, which was styled as a motion for sanctions but sought an

23

order compelling his transfer to a new facility and directing that a criminal investigation be

24

conducted into what he alleged was his attempted murder, be denied. (Doc. Nos. 80, 85.) The

25

parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations

26

within twenty-one days. To date, neither party has filed objections and the time for doing so has

27

now passed.

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

2

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

3

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

4

and proper analysis.

5
6

Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 85) are adopted in

7

full;

8

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 80) is denied; and

9

3.

10
11

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 3, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2