Johnson v. Frauenheim et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2016 adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to deny 43 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. BEJINEZ, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 47 & 43)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

19

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for

20

judicial intervention requesting, among other things, that an order issue directing

21

Defendants to cease and desist “unethical conduct” and admonishing prison officials to

22

“better regulate their legal mail.” (ECF NO. 43.) The matter was referred to a United

23

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 302 of the

24

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

25

On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

26

(F&Rs), construing Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request as a motion for injunctive relief

27
28

1

and recommending that the motion be denied. (ECF No. 47.)1 Plaintiff was given thirty

2

(30) days to file objections to the F&Rs. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file objections.

3

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

4

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

5

Court finds the F&Rs to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Court adopts in full the F&Rs filed April 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47);

8

2. Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request (ECF No. 43), construed as a motion

9

for preliminary injunction, is DENIED; and

10

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 16, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Also included in Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request was a request to late-file an opposition to
Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge addressed the timeliness of Plaintiff’s
opposition filing in the context of an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ motion to
strike. (See ECF No. 46.) Defendants’ opposition was deemed timely filed, so his request to late file is
moot.

2