Rodriguez v. Brown, et al.

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9 , 17 , 25 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/17/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. Nos. 9, 17, 25)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joseph D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2015,
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Stuart Sherman (Warden of the California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF)) (“Defendant”), for adverse conditions of
confinement and related state claims.
On December 11, 2015 and May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions requesting preliminary
injunctive relief seeking court orders preventing his transfer and requiring Defendant to provide
him with prepacked meals. (ECF Nos. 9, 17.) Defendant opposed the motions on several
grounds. (ECF Nos. 23-24.)
The Magistrate Judge recommended on September 2, 2016, that Plaintiff’s motions
requesting preliminary injunctive relief be denied because “Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits of this case, and the orders for transfer and relief from retaliation sought by
1

1

Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims in this case.” (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was notified

2

that he may file written objections with the Court within 20 days after being served with the

3

findings and recommendations. (Id.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any

4

objections.

5

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

6

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

7

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8
9
10

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) are
ADOPTED in full, and Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 9,
17) are DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 17, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2