Purtue v. Kearnes et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 20 , 22 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL PURTUE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

G. EBERLE et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 20, 22)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Michael Purtue is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

21

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On November 10, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

23

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

24

(Doc. No. 22.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

25

notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed his

26

objections to the findings and recommendations on November 28, 2016. (Doc. No. 27.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
1

1

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by

2

proper analysis.

3

Based on the foregoing,

4

1. The November 10, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in

5
6
7
8

full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 20) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 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