Simonson v. Singh et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 04/3/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

CRAIG SIMONSON,
Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMOPRARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01147-AWI-MJS (PC)

(ECF No. 25)

v.
T. SINGH,

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought

19

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

20

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

21

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 27, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On January 17,

22

2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s

23

request for a preliminary junction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff

24

was directed to file his objections within fourteen days. Plaintiff’s objections were filed on

25

January 25, 2017. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff’s one-paged objections reiterates his belief that

26

he is entitled to a restraining order to prevent “any future conflicts” with staff and that an

27

investigation into the Sheriff’s Department’s misconduct and a facility transfer are both

28

1

necessary. Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of counsel. Plaintiff sets

2

forth no new arguments or facts.

3

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

4

the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s request. The Court finds the

5

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

6

Plaintiff has made no showing that he is entitled to injunctive relief at this time. The Court

7

will deny his request, albeit without prejudice. If new circumstances arise in the future

8

that warrant consideration, Plaintiff may renew his request at that time.

9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 17, 2017 (ECF No. 25)

11

are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining

12
13

order (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 3, 2017

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