Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 62 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/5/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC)

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

NGUYEN, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 64)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint against Defendants Audrey Long, April Leavens, Long Moua, and
Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.)
On May 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
(ECF No. 64) to deny Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 62), wherein
Plaintiff complained that he was recently deprived of his legal property. The Magistrate
Judge granted Plaintiff fourteen days to file his objections.

27
28

1

1

On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed his objections. (ECF No. 65.) They have been

2

considered and found to lack merit. As Plaintiff has previously been informed, he may

3

not use the pendency of the instant lawsuit to raise new, unrelated claims against new

4

parties.

5

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and

6

Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully

7

reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be

8

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on May 5, 2017

11

(ECF No. 64) in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 62) is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 5, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2