Bettencourt v. Parks et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction 5 , 12 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/13/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00150-DAD-BAM (PC)

v.
L. PARKER, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 5, 12)

16
17

Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined to consent to magistrate
19
judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes (Doc. No. 9), and the matter was therefore
20
referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule
21
302.
22
On February 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against
23
defendants L. Parker, DDS; H. Crooks, DDS; and L. Guzman, a dental assistant. (Doc. No. 5.)
24
Therein plaintiff asserted that all of his claims are true, and these defendants should be arrested
25

for criminal prosecutions, and their wages should be garnished for disfiguring Plaintiff’s healthy

26
teeth. (Id.) The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
28
1

1

On August 4, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

2

recommending that defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 12.)

3

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any

4

objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days of the date of service of that order. (Doc.

5

No. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 13.)

6

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

7

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

8

objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

9

proper analysis.

10

The nature of plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations is unclear to the

11

undersigned. It appears possible plaintiff is concerned the magistrate judge was recommending

12

dismissal of this case. (Doc. No. 13 at 1, 3.) If that is the concern, plaintiff is mistaken, as the

13

magistrate judge recommended in the findings and recommendation only that plaintiff’s motion

14

for preliminary injunction be denied. As explained by the magistrate judge, it is true that

15

plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous, malicious, or

16

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a

17

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); 28 U.S.C. §

18

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). However, plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to determine

19

whether it is subject to dismissal. The complaint will be screened in due course. Plaintiff’s

20

action is not being dismissed at this time. The undersigned is not persuaded by plaintiff’s

21

objections, and agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis.

22

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued August 4, 2016 (Doc. No. 12) are

23

adopted in full and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 5) is denied.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

September 13, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2