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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?