Quiroga v. Graves et al

Filing 64

ORDER ADOPTING 61 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 60 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/1/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SERGEANT GRAVES, et al.,

15

No. 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Defendant.

16

(Doc. No. 61)

17
18

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

19

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

20

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

21

On April 22, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that plaintiff’s April 19, 2019 motion (Doc. No. 60)—which the magistrate judge

23

construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief—be denied because: (1) to the extent that

24

plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against prison officials at High Desert State Prison, the court lacks

25

jurisdiction over those officials as they are not named as defendants in the present action; and (2)

26

to the extent that plaintiff’s motion seeks injunctive relief against prison officials at Kern County

27

Sheriff’s Detention Facility—some of whom were named as defendants in this action—the court

28

must deny plaintiff’s motion because he is no longer housed at that jail facility. (Doc. No. 61.)
1

1

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

2

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date,

3

plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has since passed.

4

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

5

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

6

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

7

proper analysis.

8

Accordingly,

9

1.

10
11
12
13
14

The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 61) are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 60) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 1, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2