Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING 65 & 66 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/19/18. (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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

A. PODSAKOFF, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 46, 47, 65, 66, 74)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

19

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

20

On August 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default. (Doc. No. 46.) On

21

February 7, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Doc. No. 65.) The parties were provided

23

twenty-one days in which to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.)

24

To date, neither party has done so, and the time for filing objections has now passed.

25

On August 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 47.)

26

On February 14, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

27

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Doc. No. 66.) The parties were provided

28

twenty-one days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) On March
1

1

5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the February 14, 2018 findings and

2

recommendations.1 (Doc. No. 74.)

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

4

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

5

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

6

by the record and proper analysis.

7

In his motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff claims that he is at risk of imminent

8

harm because defendants have begun involuntarily medicating him with antipsychotic drugs.

9

(Doc. No. 47 at 1.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing them from doing so. (Id.) Plaintiff

10

argues that these drugs have caused him pain, and have also damaged the lining of his esophagus.

11

(Id.) In recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion, the assigned magistrate judge noted that

12

plaintiff had not provided the court with a declaration from a qualified medical professional

13

explaining his medical condition, nor had plaintiff provided any basis upon which to conclude

14

that plaintiff himself was qualified to render a medical opinion. (Doc. No. 66 at 2.) In seeking

15

reconsideration of the findings and recommendations, plaintiff has provided the court with

16

medical records from an examination of his esophagus. (Doc. No. 74 at 10–12.) However, those

17

medical records provide no evidence that plaintiff is currently receiving antipsychotic

18

medications, and provide no support for the conclusion that plaintiff is at risk of any imminent

19

harm. Accordingly, the court finds no error with the conclusion reached by the magistrate judge

20

that plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of his claim.

21

CONCLUSION

22

For these reasons,

23

1.

24

adopted in full;

25
26
27
28

The findings and recommendations issued February 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 65) are

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of default (Doc. No. 46) is denied:

/////
1

The court construes this motion for reconsideration as an objection to those findings and
recommendations.
2

1

3.

2

The findings and recommendations issued February 14, 2018 (Doc. No. 66) are
adopted in full;

3

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 47) is denied;

4

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 74) is denied; and

5

6.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3