Purtue v. Kearnes et al

Filing 70

ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/28/2017. (Jessen, A)

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

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

Plaintiff,
v.
G. EBERLE, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 30, 34)

16
17
18

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights filed action pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction on December 7,

20

2016. (Doc. No. 30.)

21

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued

23

findings and recommendations recommending that the motion for a preliminary injunction be

24

denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that

25

objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. No. 34.) Plaintiff timely filed

26

objections on December 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 39.)

27
28

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

1

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by

2

proper analysis.

3

Based on the foregoing,

4

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 16, 2016 (Doc. No. 34) are

5

adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction filed December 7, 2016 (Doc. No. is

6
7

denied.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

April 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2