Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING 99 Findings and Recommendations DENYING 90 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL GONZALES,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
A. PODSAKOFF, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. No. 90, 99)

16
17
18

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

19

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

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

21

On January 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied because the court lacks

23

jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 99 at 2.) The findings

24

and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to

25

be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and

26

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

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, the undersigned concludes
1

1

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

2

Accordingly,

3

1.

4
5
6
7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 99) are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 90) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 17, 2019
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